| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
How many of you remember: "READ MY LIPS< NO NEW TAXES" & we were taxed like hell!!:o
I remember it, but you can't take that at face value. Sure, it was stupid to say when your party doesn't control congress, but that is what ultimately screwed him. He basically challenged the democratic congress to raise taxes, and they did... he paid the price.
Read my lips, when you are a politician, don't put such a big emphasis on the campaign promises that are sure to be broken!
:) |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by hondaaddict
I cant wait for the 2009 chevrolet camaro to hit the streets. (if it does and looks like the prototype) I will be inline to buy one. I had a 98 z28 with t-tops. God did I love that car. America is really making some nice models again and you cant beat the shellby or z06. Theres not allot of imports that can touch those in the price range.:2:
I like the new look of the Camaro, but I need to see what it has for power first.
My wife and I are thinking of having a kid, which means we need to get rid of our Thunderbird, or at least put it in the other garage. My wife thinks she is going to take my X and I will get something else... hahaha, I don't think so! |
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
. . . My wife thinks she is going to take my X and I will get something else... hahaha, I don't think so!
We'll see . . . :2: :2: :2: |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
I remember it, but you can't take that at face value. Sure, it was stupid to say when your party doesn't control congress, but that is what ultimately screwed him. He basically challenged the democratic congress to raise taxes, and they did... he paid the price.
Read my lips, when you are a politician, don't put such a big emphasis on the campaign promises that are sure to be broken!
:)
We should change the constitution: Whoever broke his/her promise shall be impreached! I hate politician.:3: |
|
|
| keremoner |
Ok, Bush admittedly is not a great communicator and certainly not another Reagan. But, take a look at the current Dem. field of candidates. Obama is naive, inexperienced and a outright socialist in his views regarding issues like healthcare, taxes etc. Hillary on the other hand isn't that much more experienced, as much of a socialist, and a outright liar (remember the papers that mysteriously appeared in HER office after she didn't know anything about them, making outrageous profit somehow in commodities market when she has no track record of investment savy, white water, etc, etc,)
With the help of the news media, illegals, the dead vote, etc., they hope to take the white house next year.
Free market economy is what made us prosperous and powerful and now democrats want to turn to the european or Canadian model ?? My only hope is that there is no middle of the road democrat candidate out there so they will put their feet in their mouth with their extreme left views and cause the independents to vote republican again. |
|
|
| hondacuraworld |
These aren't my words, but they make sense.
I make it a practice to not involve myself in politics not to be partisaned to one side or another here on the boards, but no matter whose side you're on, you'll see a kernel of truth here:
***************************
I quickly find myself ostracized by both conservatives and liberals when I agree with one of their stances and disagree with the others. If I disagree with a liberal, they assume I'm a Republican. If I disagree with a conservative, they assume I'm a Democrat. I'm neither. The closest I ever found to a party that I could agree with was the Libertarian party, and I find myself in disagreement with some of the things they believe, too. I do think drugs should be outlawed, not free, and I don't believe we can follow a policy of isolationism, nor can we withdraw from the world. Basically, I don't get along with anyone, but I presume you'll all come around to my way of thinking eventually, because my view is the correct one. Even when I change my mind.
So for years, I considered myself a Libertarian. I tried to vote for Libertarian candidates when there were any, and often went for the conservative when there weren't (except for previously-noted Democrats whom I admired).
But I slowly came to a realization - an epiphany if you will. None of it matters. I still remember George Wallace's assertion that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties, and I came to realize he was right about that, but moreover, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between any US politicians. They all promise what they believe will get them elected. They all lie through their teeth about that. They keep none of their promises, unless they are small and inconsequential and easy to achieve. Their main goal in life is to be re-elected, and they will do anything - ANYTHING - to make that happen.
Bills are introduced and debated as if they mattered - they are all set-pieces, theatrical displays that mean nothing at all. This brouhaha over a military funding bill - it is all for posturing and posing - means nothing. In the end, nothing will change, because nobody wants anything to change. It does not matter who is elected, we will keep doing what we do. No one has any desire to get anything done, because the threads of power are so interlocked that if they tried, they'd lose the support of those who they appear to oppose, and they'd be pulled down. Those who get voted in and understand how the game is played remain if they play ball. Those who do not understand, or those who think they are really there to do anything, get the boot, and quickly.
Do you seriously think that when a Democrat stands up and delivers a blistering diatribe against a Republican, there is any real heat behind it? It's all laughing up the sleeve, as they go through the backstage machinations that make it look to the electorate like they're actually doing anything at all besides lining their pockets, voting their friends largesse, and taking everything they can get their hands on.
When a Congressperson is tossed overboard from time to time, or a staffer pushed under a bus, it is done to mollify a public that has temporarily raised its ire and made threatening noises. It's all back-office agreements and handshakes and patronage, and the tossed politico or wonk or what-have-you soon finds tenure in a university or a on the board of a corporation or in a thinktank somewhere, to continue to keep the game in motion and wait to see if they get a turn in the bigs again.
In the meantime, we citizens get all bent out of shape and go at each other hammer and tongs over this proposal or that bill in the House. When Congress wants to do something really nasty to us, they set the stage first by someone tossing out a 'flag burning amendment' bill or a 'no gay marriage' bill, and while the public rants and raves on both sides of the issue, they get busy doing whatever it was that they actually were intended to do, which generally involved the public getting broken down shotgun style.
Do you think for one second that ANYONE in politics gives a rat's patoot about gay marriage? About burning flags? About national health care coverage? NO! They will bring these things up so that they can be re-elected by those who do care about such things. It's all like professional wrestling - entertainment, with a foregone conclusion. There is never any chance element to it - that would not be safe for all of them, which means it would not be safe for any of them.
The Mafia allegedly requires a 'made man' to commit a murder, and the other members can ensure the new member's continued loyalty because they share that crime in common, and they can all hang for their involvement in each other's crimes. No one is fully trusted until they become 'made'.
Do you think Congress is any different? Really? Have you any evidence of that?
Vote for whomever you like. Be 'for' or 'against' whatever you like. I have my desires, they haven't gone away. But I no longer believe that anything any of us (members of the public) do matters one little bit.
Not that things don't change - they do. But they changed in a manner that is agreed-upon by both both sides, in a manner that allows maximum robbery of the public, where everyone gets to look like a winner to their constituents, and it is all planned and agreed upon in advance, like a WWF 'championship'.
And not that this does not damage the nation - it does. This train will fall off the tracks - such extreme pillaging must eventually destroy all public trust, empty the public coffers, and beggar our nation in the world. But it won't matter whom we vote for - that will happen when it happens, and nothing we can do will speed it up or slow it down, let alone stop it. |
|
|
| keremoner |
| I agree whole heartedly with that assessment of politicians. I dislike them all. I am a liberterian on most issues as well but face it, they will never win any election. That being said, republicans in general are the lesser of the two evils in that they don't have policies that enslave people (make them dependent on government). |
|
|
| Blackura |
| So called Conservatives today are 180 degrees opposite of what conservatives used to be. Barry Goldwater rolls over in his grave. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
No kidding, Barry would not be pleased to see the current state of affairs.
I too side more with the Libertarian party than either of the other two, but quite often I categorize myself as a Republican because the Libertarians don't make it past "also ran" status.
Interestingly enough, when I was up in Vegas at the beginning of June, I was registering for a WSOP event, and Greg Rahmer was behind me in line (for non-poker fans, he won the 2005 World Series of Poker main event). I was speaking to him for about 1.5 hours and he said that he is running on the Libertarian ticket as VP. He has no desire to win, nor any belief that he would, but he feels that he may be able to get more votes from people who believe they are throwing their vote away.
One of these days we need to stop looking at as if we are throwing our vote away, and start rallying up support for the party. It will break into the mainstream eventually, but only if we help push it there. |
|
|
| Blackura |
I spent the vast majority of my life as a registered Republican, working heavily in their campaigns over the years. I registered as an Independent when I saw the party heading towards lies, corruption, hate-mongering, and fascism. I'd be very embarrassed to call myself a Republican after seeing the condition the country is in today. It amazes me to see people support this and somehow believe this is all good. Having a W sticker on a car is akin to publicly wearing a dunce cap or worse.
I too generally lean Libertarian, but mostly because it's the opposite of current Republican philosophy. With a Libertarian in power, we certainly wouldn't A) be in Iraq, B) have the biggest deficit in history, C) wouldn't give a damn whether gays marry or if the lady next door had an abortion. Libertarians get out of people's personal lives, rather than butt into them. Small government. Less spending.
At the same time, it's also the opposite of many core Democratic philosophies. No gun laws, no government health care, no affirmative action, no welfare, no governmental babysitting and hand holding.
With so many Libertarians coming from the Republican party, more votes for Libertarians could mean fewer votes for Republicans, which in theory would help a Democrat win (assuming the Libertarian candidate in their own words "cannot win"). Politics is a stranger than fiction, isnt' it? |
|
|
| Goodgirl |
| You certainly said a mouthful but I agree with most of it. I am an RN so like most in the medical professioin tend to lean to the right. I don't know where my vote is going but it won't be to a democrat yet it seems if I vote libertarian/independent, then it is one less republican vote and the democrats benefit. I wish the republicans had a good candidate. The thought of a President Hillary makes me ill. Obama is too wet behind the ears and Guiiani although well traveled and ok with foreign policy won't get the female religious vote because he comes across as a womanizer. Oh well.......... |
|
|
| Hockeyfox |
| I guess it is no surprise that most in the medical field vote republican, which is why most in the energy industry also vote republican. Which is too bad because on both accounts, we need a vast overhaul. |
|
|
| greatscot |
quote:
Originally posted by Goodgirl
. . . I am an RN so like most in the medical professioin tend to lean to the right. I don't know where my vote is going but it won't be to a democrat . . .
Unfortunately, out here in the land of fruits and nuts, you would be the odd one out. The California Nurses Association is very active against Reps-they torpedoed Arnold's props at the last election-and are very actively pushing an anti-Rep agenda. Check out their website at calnurses.org. My wife is also an RN, but at a non-union hospital, and I am a Labor Relations Consultant for a heavily unionized medical company, and the unions are all anti-Rep. We need more like you out here in la la land.
I agree with the recent posts in that I am a registered Rep, but have issues with both major parties on several points. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
Our country is spltting into 50/50 by the 2 party system. It's very difficult to get things done from the state level to the federal level. This Iraq war will most likely bring down the Bush/Republican party whether you like it or not unless we can get that devil, Bin Ladin before the election. A democratic president means bigger government, bigger spending, bigger deficit, bigger welfare, more taxes. War or no war, it's too early to tell, lots of interests in the Middle east from both parties.
I have since joined the public sector after 22 years in the private sector & most likely will remain in the public sector till retirement, unless going back to my own business if opportunities arise. So I know how hard it's to get things done in the public sector, lots of old furniture creating lots of gridlocks. I will give you a simple example, in a private co., if I want some business cards, the secretary can just order it right away or even use the petty cash & one phone call/or email will get me the cards in a week. whereas in the public sector, it has to go thru the central layers of layers of processes & just wait for 6 to 12 months before the cards arrive. You may ask why can't I just fire the secretary? I can't, the personnel that does the ordering for all the state personnel, is in another division & there is no reason for them to rush, it will probably sit there for a few months before any action is taken. So this is the kind of public system we are facing & it will never survive longer than a day if it ever goes private.
I am constantly reminding myself not to become another piece of old furniture by short-circuiting some of the things inside the system so I can get things done.
In other words, governement or non-government, we need to have the right persons for the right jobs regardless of the system. I will never work for someone else cause I refuse to make my boss rich so I decided to make the people of my state rich.:2: |
|
|
| mmmhmm |
| Sorry guys, hate to change the subject but back to the original post... Yup, I value my hard earned money... so I'd rather spend it on "makes" that will give me the most value... unfortunately that's not on american cars... |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
I spent the vast majority of my life as a registered Republican, working heavily in their campaigns over the years. I registered as an Independent when I saw the party heading towards lies, corruption, hate-mongering, and fascism. I'd be very embarrassed to call myself a Republican after seeing the condition the country is in today. It amazes me to see people support this and somehow believe this is all good. Having a W sticker on a car is akin to publicly wearing a dunce cap or worse.
I too generally lean Libertarian, but mostly because it's the opposite of current Republican philosophy. With a Libertarian in power, we certainly wouldn't A) be in Iraq, B) have the biggest deficit in history, C) wouldn't give a damn whether gays marry or if the lady next door had an abortion. Libertarians get out of people's personal lives, rather than butt into them. Small government. Less spending.
At the same time, it's also the opposite of many core Democratic philosophies. No gun laws, no government health care, no affirmative action, no welfare, no governmental babysitting and hand holding.
With so many Libertarians coming from the Republican party, more votes for Libertarians could mean fewer votes for Republicans, which in theory would help a Democrat win (assuming the Libertarian candidate in their own words "cannot win"). Politics is a stranger than fiction, isnt' it?
For the most part, you aren't too far off. I don't think the Libertarian party is in favor of no gun laws, no welfare, etc... I think the gun laws will be fair, i.e. if you are not a criminal, have at it. Welfare will be what it is meant to be, a helping hand, not a hand out.
You are absolutely correct about staying out of people's personal business. Libertarians are very much of the I will mind my business, you mind yours, theory. I don't care if you are gay or straight, if it makes you happy, I am happy. There is no reason two people, regardless of their sex, can't be married.
Last but not least, church and state will be separate, the way it should be! I am not a religous person, but I get very anti-religous (and vocal about it) when someone tries to shove their beliefs down my throat. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Blackura
So called Conservatives today are 180 degrees opposite of what conservatives used to be. Barry Goldwater rolls over in his grave.
So does Reagan |
|
|
| keremoner |
For those who consider themselves libertarian like me:
Remember this always that a vote for the libertarian candidate is like a vote for the democrat candidate. There are NO viable dem candidates out there in the current pool that resembles anything other than a luke warm socialist at best. This election can turn disasterous if you all end up voting libertarian. If you think things are bad now, try when you have a nationalized healthcare system, higher taxes for the 'rich' (who by the way probably include all of us by their definition), a foreign policy that goes back to Carter's principles, etc etc.. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
For those who consider themselves libertarian like me:
Remember this always that a vote for the libertarian candidate is like a vote for the democrat candidate. There are NO viable dem candidates out there in the current pool that resembles anything other than a luke warm socialist at best. This election can turn disasterous if you all end up voting libertarian. If you think things are bad now, try when you have a nationalized healthcare system, higher taxes for the 'rich' (who by the way probably include all of us by their definition), a foreign policy that goes back to Carter's principles, etc etc..
I do agree, this is not the election to take a stand. Too many Dems are too far to the left, the last thing we want is the entire country to be run like California.. :)
Funny thing, when Kerry was running, his tax hikes were only going to affect the rich, and those were the people making 50-60K or more per year! I don't know about you, but when I was making that kind of money, I sure didn't consider myself rich, middle class, yes, rich? far from it. |
|
|
| keremoner |
Heck, that isn't even middle class in D.C. area or NYC or half a dozen other big cities. But with dems, it is all a calculation. How many votes are in what category.
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
Funny thing, when Kerry was running, his tax hikes were only going to affect the rich, and those were the people making 50-60K or more per year! I don't know about you, but when I was making that kind of money, I sure didn't consider myself rich, middle class, yes, rich? far from it.
|
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
Interestingly enough, when I was up in Vegas at the beginning of June, I was registering for a WSOP event, and Greg Rahmer was behind me in line (for non-poker fans, he won the 2005 World Series of Poker main event).
gmc74, I didn't know there were other poker enthusiasts here. I play on line usually (average 80-100 hands a day and not for real money) but my wife dislikes it. Are you a semi-pro or a pro ?? |
|
|
| acuramdx300 |
"Acura, Lexus and Infiniti are all created just for US market."
Dont forget Canada, and on a recent trip to India (i'm from there) , they get lexus. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
gmc74, I didn't know there were other poker enthusiasts here. I play on line usually (average 80-100 hands a day and not for real money) but my wife dislikes it. Are you a semi-pro or a pro ??
No, a hopeful maybe...
I don't play online anymore, I get too distracted and don't maximize my winnings, so I play at the local casinos and in Vegas. This was the first year entering the WSOP, event 3 ($1500 no limit), and I will definitely do it again next year.
I have had a pretty good couple of years playing poker, but definitely not good enough to quit my real job. I am not sure if I could play poker for a career, but I wouldn't mind giving it a shot :)
I taught my wife how to play, so she goes to the casinos with me. She is getting really good, though I still kick her butt, usually... she refuses to read any poker books, then wonders why she doesn't get better. I have probably read a dozen, just finished Harrington's first book and will go get the second tonight. |
|
|
| keremoner |
| I agree that reading books on poker helps (heck they even have one on mathematics/statistics of poker), however what help most is being intelligent, emotionless, and unpredictable IMO. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I agree that reading books on poker helps (heck they even have one on mathematics/statistics of poker), however what help most is being intelligent, emotionless, and unpredictable IMO.
I think you learn a lot about what to do and what not to do in the books, but all that goes out the window when you play a bad player. I was reading 'Read'em and Reap' which is a book about tells, and in one chapter he starts by saying "You can not read a player who can not read their cards"
This is so true. I play in a monthly game, and a few of the players are horrible. I would rather play against the 7 best people there, I know where I stand. With these ones, they often call with very low percentage hands and suck out.
The best things to learn in poker are outs, odds and pot odds.
Outs are the number of cards that you have not seen, that can complete your hand (assuming you are correct in believing that hand will win).
Odds - just a numbers game - if you are open ended after the turn, there are 8 cards that can win it for you out of 46 cards that you have not seen. Your odds are 46-8, or just under 6-1
Pot odds - is the amount you need to call in line with your odds? If you have an up and down straight draw, and the pot is 60, and you have to put 10 in to call, then you are getting 6-1 pot odds. If you do this same scenario 6 times, you will break even. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
| Oh, and most importantly, be observant, especially when you aren't in the hand. Betting patterns, as well as maneurisms will tell you a lot about the player over time. |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
Oh, and most importantly, be observant, especially when you aren't in the hand. Betting patterns, as well as maneurisms will tell you a lot about the player over time.
Exactly, but that is where being unpredictable helps. Players who bluff too much, or never, are so easy to read. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Exactly, but that is where being unpredictable helps. Players who bluff too much, or never, are so easy to read.
The hardest part about someone who bluffs a lot, when you are playing for cash, is that they will have a hand sometimes, and that will hurt a lot if you don't respect it.
The key is to bet enough to get the proper information, and not to be afraid to throw away a hand when it is probably beat. The latter is easier said than done. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
| It seems like this thread has transformed from American car to universal healthcare, presidential race, politics and now gambling....wonders what's next!:8: |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| THE INVASION OF LOCUS' !!!!! :4: :4: :4: |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Heck, that isn't even middle class in D.C. area or NYC or half a dozen other big cities. But with dems, it is all a calculation. How many votes are in what category.
Okay, that put me in the lower class then, how sad!:( |
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
And what are we discussing now?:confused: :)
This thread should be retitled "by Americans" instead. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
| I believe this thread is now a working example of ADD |
|
|
| mdx99 |
Let's talk $$
With this credit crunch going on in the whole world (We American started it), are we heading to Bear Market, recession, Stock market melt down or not? And why?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| cardingtr |
The credit crunch is actually a reality check for american borrower. Period. It is the result of years of american mentality of borrowing against more than how much they can afford to pay and the creditor that let it happen. Now both will suffer.
This might actually be just a nasty correction of the credit market but the long term effect is the thinning of the middle class. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
Overall, I think we are going to see a huge rise in bankruptcy filings, at the same time that the laws are making it harder to file.
Way too many people bought more house than they could afford with an interest only loan, thinking that they would be set when the value went up... well, that didn't happen and now they are screwed!
Personally, I think it is kind of funny, people make bad decisions constantly and keep f*cking themselves and blame 'the market' or someone else.
I also find it interesting that all of the loan companies would be willing to take this kind of gamble, it is crazy if you ask me. The smartest move you can make is a 15 or 30 yr fixed mortgage if it is your primary residence.
As for the stock market, it is an interesting time. I am not sure what the future brings, but my money is in the companies that have a high rate of return when the interest rates are up. I am investing in companies right now that hold large sums of their customers money on float, like payroll companies... they should be slow and steady over the next several years. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
| Worst of all, some of these teaser loans have -ve amortization which are wiping out the little equities left of the homeowners if any. Uncle Sam pumped some $30 billions into the financial market last Friday to shore up the market while Japan pumped in $5 billions into their market, it'a a global issue. Hope that the worst is over or close to. Since investors are reluctant to put their money in the real estate or mortgage investment, eventually, the stock market may be a good alternative. |
|
|
| keremoner |
| Unfortunately the worst is just starting. The credit crunch that has raised its ugly head is going to compound the real estate crisis that originally started with the sub-prime debacle. The signs from overseas (Banc Paris-Bas last week and several funds that suspended trading) is pretty bleak. Central banks can pump all the inflationary money as they want. Bottom line is that there are a lot of bad and potentially bad loans out there. Literally trillions were loaned to people who had no business getting those loans. The resulting effect was a highly superficial hyper inflationary real estate environment. This is a little like the pre 2000 tech stock hype. Despite the fact that real estate is a hard assset and will keep most of its value under the worst circumstances, the 2-3 fold increases in market values was the result of too much money chasing a relatively fixed supply of real estate. 'If something is too good to be true' statement goes for everything, even real estate. Now, even buyers with good credit are having some trouble finding financing, which compounds the problem. For this thing to work itself out, we need the shake out to be completed. Based on the availability of easy money until about a year ago, I estimate the worse to be over within 12-24 months from now. By then, inventories and prices should stabilize at significantly lower levels than where they are. Even fundamentally sound markets like D.C. will be affected. I expect to see real estate prices in general to reach back to their 2005 levels by 2015 at the earliest. (that is greatly dependent on how the mortgage business reforms itself too) |
|
|
| gmc74 |
I am going to be buying up condos here in Phoenix once this thing bottoms out.
The benefit to a condo here is that there are snowbirds that will pay for it all year, just to use it from fall to spring.
Plus, the benefit of no outdoor maintenance cost is nice for an investor. |
|
|
| keremoner |
I know the area well. Got my MBA from Thunderbird in Glendale.
quote:
Originally posted by gmc74
I am going to be buying up condos here in Phoenix once this thing bottoms out.
The benefit to a condo here is that there are snowbirds that will pay for it all year, just to use it from fall to spring.
Plus, the benefit of no outdoor maintenance cost is nice for an investor.
|
|
|
| mdx99 |
I agree that the real estate would not bottom out till at least 5 years from now, the situation is worst than the early 90' period. The cycle is about every 10 years. I will be waiting for the next life time opportunities, probably the last one till my retirement.
In the mean time I view the tech sector of stock market as an opportunity for investment and will build up my portfolio gradually as this mini crash winds down. |
|
|
| keremoner |
Situation is fundamentally different than the early 90s. This one here will be harder to overcome because credit availability is likely to be affected for the long term. I just hope that none of you out there were banking on your house for retirement to a great extent. For the foreseeable future, I see downward trend for most major market areas. Money magazine had an article about 12-18 months ago. It was about the most over priced markets and how long it may take to recover from the correction. For example, even though D.C. wasn't that bad as % over valuation, they thought it would take 10 years to recover. Most people laughed at the article back than. Heck, even recently, I read articles by economists of NAR and other building related associations. These jokers, believe it or not, were and are still saying that there is no long term problem and that there are no pockets of bubbles. How dumb do you have to be to look at the real estate market's dynamics only from the point of view of raw statistics (like number of non-home owners and population trends). There simply is NO demand out there in most markets because there is a major affordability problem which is now compounded by a credit crunch. Demand is only legitimate if there is purchasing power behind it. Otherwise it is a superficial 'demand' that is not sustainable.
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
I agree that the real estate would not bottom out till at least 5 years from now, the situation is worst than the early 90' period. The cycle is about every 10 years. I will be waiting for the next life time opportunities, probably the last one till my retirement.
In the mean time I view the tech sector of stock market as an opportunity for investment and will build up my portfolio gradually as this mini crash winds down.
|
|
|
| gmc74 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
Situation is fundamentally different than the early 90s. This one here will be harder to overcome because credit availability is likely to be affected for the long term. I just hope that none of you out there were banking on your house for retirement to a great extent. For the foreseeable future, I see downward trend for most major market areas. Money magazine had an article about 12-18 months ago. It was about the most over priced markets and how long it may take to recover from the correction. For example, even though D.C. wasn't that bad as % over valuation, they thought it would take 10 years to recover. Most people laughed at the article back than. Heck, even recently, I read articles by economists of NAR and other building related associations. These jokers, believe it or not, were and are still saying that there is no long term problem and that there are no pockets of bubbles. How dumb do you have to be to look at the real estate market's dynamics only from the point of view of raw statistics (like number of non-home owners and population trends). There simply is NO demand out there in most markets because there is a major affordability problem which is now compounded by a credit crunch. Demand is only legitimate if there is purchasing power behind it. Otherwise it is a superficial 'demand' that is not sustainable.
I don't know much about other markets, but here in AZ, the house values were very low in relation to wages around 2000-2002. Two things caused the market to sky rocket, first the easy nature of getting a no interest loan, second, the influx of investors from CA trying to take advantage of the under valued market.
Now we have people who waited to long to sell, and are trying to gain a profit before the values get too low, coupled with a ton of people who can't afford their current mortgage, and are upside down on their house.
I am just sitting back and waiting to pounce! The house behind mine is 3900 sq ft and was purchased for 404K in March of 04, then for 609K in June of 05 and is currently on the market for over 700K. It has been on the market for 8 months, and they finally started leasing it, because they can't get any buyers.
Why spend 700K on this, when you can go 5 miles up the road and spend 600K on a bigger, new house.
Besides, zillow puts the price around 656K
I bought my house in 2002 for 270K for 3400 sq ft. The same house with a smaller lot and a worse view sold for 625K in 05, but now the market is closer to 550K. I am not concerned, if the market never goes up another penny, I have doubled my money...
I am not planning on moving until I get sick of stairs, which shouldn't be for another 10-20 years. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
| It just take some times for the weak hands (meaning speculators & those who couldn't afford it in the first place) to be shaken out. The Fed has plenty of room to lower interest rate to shore up this financial crisis. It's expected that there may be a surprise rate cut in the coming weeks since they missed the boat last week. As for homeowners like most of us, there is no affect at all whether our house worths $1 milllion or $500k. The upscale market is still intact in California. New development of some 3500 -4000 sq ft. houses are asking $1.5 millions in my area.:2: |
|
|
| keremoner |
I wouldn't hold my breath for rate cuts because Fed made it clear that they are still on the inflation watch. Now they even have more ammunition with central banks around the globe pumping in billions to cope with liquidity problems. Even if there was a rate cut, it will do nothing to the mortgage rates and availability problem that is just starting to raise its ugly head. Long term rates will probably remain stable and even if they went down a bit, mortgage sector is in trouble and will not budge. I can see the federal government possibly stepping in if there situation becomes much more critical (bailing out institutions and distressed loans.
There is no effect for most of us is correct (to some extent) if you do not have to sell or refinance. However, mortgage troubles is affecting the stock market as well as you see. I am sure when you get your next brokerage statement, you will see that you too are affected. Make no mistake, what happened in the mortgage sector is an earthquake that shook the financial markets. Now we need to see how long and severe will the aftershocks be.
quote:
Originally posted by mdx99
It just take some times for the weak hands (meaning speculators & those who couldn't afford it in the first place) to be shaken out. The Fed has plenty of room to lower interest rate to shore up this financial crisis. It's expected that there may be a surprise rate cut in the coming weeks since they missed the boat last week. As for homeowners like most of us, there is no affect at all whether our house worths $1 milllion or $500k. The upscale market is still intact in California. New development of some 3500 -4000 sq ft. houses are asking $1.5 millions in my area.:2:
|
|
|
| gmc74 |
I think I will just take all the equity out of my house and buy a few hundred thousand powerball tickets, I hear it is up to 180 million...
Ahhh, that would be fun... :p |
|
|
| mdx99 |
quote:
Originally posted by keremoner
I wouldn't hold my breath for rate cuts because Fed made it clear that they are still on the inflation watch. Now they even have more ammunition with central banks around the globe pumping in billions to cope with liquidity problems. Even if there was a rate cut, it will do nothing to the mortgage rates and availability problem that is just starting to raise its ugly head. Long term rates will probably remain stable and even if they went down a bit, mortgage sector is in trouble and will not budge. I can see the federal government possibly stepping in if there situation becomes much more critical (bailing out institutions and distressed loans.
There is no effect for most of us is correct (to some extent) if you do not have to sell or refinance. However, mortgage troubles is affecting the stock market as well as you see. I am sure when you get your next brokerage statement, you will see that you too are affected. Make no mistake, what happened in the mortgage sector is an earthquake that shook the financial markets. Now we need to see how long and severe will the aftershocks be.
The purpose of the next rate cut (could be a surprise one,) is to calm down the stock market not the credit crunch. Fed Reserve is doing that with $60 billions already while the European had pumped in some $300 billions into their system. The problem with most individual investors are that they bailed out at the wrong time. Forget about your brokerage statement, ride it out if not add further funds into your account as history told us that if you are not in the market following the bottom, you will miss a good 20% runup in the following 6 months. The key is where is the bottom, nobody knows!
We should be glad that the Federal reserve acted so soon this time but should be worried as well because it means the crisis is serious than we thought. |
|
|
| mdx99 |
| Here comes the surprise 1/2 point rate cut last friday! More to come in Sept.:2: |
|
|
|
