More on housing affordability
-
I still think having the fed bailing out people with the loans would have been a better option. Banks get the remaining principle on the loan to get rid of the bad loans, the loans are reworked at the Fed's interest rate with a payment schedule those who are responsible for the mortgage can pay, and put a clause in there that these loans may not be sold, transfered or refinanced. Banks don't fail, people keep their homes, and eventually the government makes a minor profit of saving the economy, and the people can't fuck up this without having completely lost their income. But for some reason I never heard that idea floated among the political set.
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit. If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford. Neither popular nor good policy, how would you define a cut off, for instance? If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it. Ultimately the collapse of the credit markets, let alone the collapse of the banking system, was always going to do more harm to more people then propping it up. Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
062142174041062102
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
There is a much better option, been in use in Europe for over a decade, probably there too (artificial disk/disk replacement), but the FDA only approved it for use here I think 2 years ago now, and only a few insurers cover it.
My dad had that for two discs in his lower back a few years ago, of course that was through the nasty socialist NHS in Britain. Full recovery within 4 months, had a shunt in for a month or so. He had held out, as there is some risk of permanent damage, until he couldn't take it anymore. Said it made him feel 10 years younger.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
My dad had that for two discs in his lower back a few years ago, of course that was through the nasty socialist NHS in Britain. Full recovery within 4 months, had a shunt in for a month or so. He had held out, as there is some risk of permanent damage, until he couldn't take it anymore. Said it made him feel 10 years younger.
It's funny how you never hear about that much in the health care discussions.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Kidlet #2? Pah! Slacker! I have kidlet # 3 due in early August, the new house being built is expected complete end of June. We really didn't think this through :D
062142174041062102
We only want 2. I would have been happy with the one, he's a wonderful experiment kid. I've been teaching him how to rack people with use nerf weapons and other fun stuff. And it wasn't for lack of trying, trust me. We tried the hell out of it for #2 for a year. Not that I am complaining.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit. If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford. Neither popular nor good policy, how would you define a cut off, for instance? If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it. Ultimately the collapse of the credit markets, let alone the collapse of the banking system, was always going to do more harm to more people then propping it up. Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
I really doubt that's going to happen. Wall Street doesn't get it and Congress has no balls to pass something that will really kick their ass. They're back at it again in full swing making stuff up(what they call innovation) and no one seems to be making the kind of stink that is necessary to break them. I watched their testimony and they were just smug sitting there basically saying "We did nothing wrong according to the law." For people like that morality and ethics don't transfer to their work lives.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit. If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford. Neither popular nor good policy, how would you define a cut off, for instance? If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it. Ultimately the collapse of the credit markets, let alone the collapse of the banking system, was always going to do more harm to more people then propping it up. Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it.
Why is it that people of lesser means are automatically assumed to be of lesser moral stature? You might make the argument that a big reason for the mess the country is in, is that the 'trickle-down' philosophy automatically assumes a degree of social responsiblity / philanthropy on the part of the wealthy. That part of the equation seems to have been exposed as a fraud; why would the flip side of the coin be any more credible?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
We only want 2. I would have been happy with the one, he's a wonderful experiment kid. I've been teaching him how to rack people with use nerf weapons and other fun stuff. And it wasn't for lack of trying, trust me. We tried the hell out of it for #2 for a year. Not that I am complaining.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And it wasn't for lack of trying, trust me. We tried the hell out of it for #2 for a year. Not that I am complaining.
Yeah, quit yer bitchin', #3 wasn't exactly planned. My wife's just glad we didn't meet as teenagers ;)
062142174041062102
-
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit. If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford. Neither popular nor good policy, how would you define a cut off, for instance? If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it. Ultimately the collapse of the credit markets, let alone the collapse of the banking system, was always going to do more harm to more people then propping it up. Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford.
Compared to a bailout of the banks who only got to hand out more bonuses and paychecks to people that had been reaping huge benefits on this before it soured. The banks survived, but I wonder if they should have. Quite a few banks were more conservative and didn't risk everything like the ones being bailed out. They got screwed, and they should have been the ones rewarded. They basically gave every bank 10K per person. If they had given each person that money, you could have gotten a typical family 30-40K off their mortgage. In some cases, no, not much of a help. In quite a few cases, boom, back into the black, you could reduce payments while getting other debt under control or even get ahead. Some people would have been able to pay off hteir debt and that would have been more money directly going into the economy. I would have just done this. If it didn't save you, sorry, you should have been a little more wise, the bank at least will be able to survive. If you are now able to make everything, even if only for a little while, at least it will allow you to get into a better position temporarily, it might be enough to let you get a better job. If it paid off your debt or made it so you can now breathe easy, grats. Now go spend money wiping out debt and help the economy recover.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And it wasn't for lack of trying, trust me. We tried the hell out of it for #2 for a year. Not that I am complaining.
Yeah, quit yer bitchin', #3 wasn't exactly planned. My wife's just glad we didn't meet as teenagers ;)
062142174041062102
HAHAHAHAHA See, after #2 I'm going to get fixed. I figure, it's still a gun even if it shoots blanks, and I don't want the sort of thing that happened to some friends. Went for #2 and had triplets.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
MidwestLimey wrote:
If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it.
Why is it that people of lesser means are automatically assumed to be of lesser moral stature? You might make the argument that a big reason for the mess the country is in, is that the 'trickle-down' philosophy automatically assumes a degree of social responsiblity / philanthropy on the part of the wealthy. That part of the equation seems to have been exposed as a fraud; why would the flip side of the coin be any more credible?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Because given sufficient reward vs. risk everyone cheats. All systems are gamed. The only impact of an individuals wealth is to modify the required reward, e.g. someone worth $10m is unlikely to place any value on risk in order to gain $10k.
062142174041062102
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
There is a much better option, been in use in Europe for over a decade, probably there too (artificial disk/disk replacement), but the FDA only approved it for use here I think 2 years ago now, and only a few insurers cover it.
My dad had that for two discs in his lower back a few years ago, of course that was through the nasty socialist NHS in Britain. Full recovery within 4 months, had a shunt in for a month or so. He had held out, as there is some risk of permanent damage, until he couldn't take it anymore. Said it made him feel 10 years younger.
062142174041062102
Yeah, I'm sure I'll feel a hell of a lot better when I get it done. And there's just no way I was going to have fusion. I'd never ride a road bike again if I did, and that was too high a price. Haven't been able to ride anyway, but at least I still may in the future.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Because given sufficient reward vs. risk everyone cheats. All systems are gamed. The only impact of an individuals wealth is to modify the required reward, e.g. someone worth $10m is unlikely to place any value on risk in order to gain $10k.
062142174041062102
-
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit. If they were bailed out on a temporary basis, i.e. monthly subsidy on payment, ultimately you've delayed the problem that they can't afford to service the mortgage (or frequently even maintain the property) until the subsidy is withdrawn. If you make it permanent then you've created a class of individuals permanently dependent on handouts to support a house they can't afford. Neither popular nor good policy, how would you define a cut off, for instance? If the mortgage is refinanced in part or fully paid then you create a class of individuals who have received a wonderful gift on behalf of the taxpayer. The problem is that membership of this class becomes an aspirational attainment, simply put you've shifted the moral hazard not eliminated it. Ultimately the collapse of the credit markets, let alone the collapse of the banking system, was always going to do more harm to more people then propping it up. Now's the time to make sure that those who profited by socialized risk do not get to do it again.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
There was always a big problem with propping up the home buyers. Simply put they couldn't afford the mortgage they were servicing which led to no good subsidized exit.
Which would be the point of re-working the terms and using the fed rate. I'm not saying we take the loans and charge them just as much as the banks where, I'm saying we take the loans, we balance the banks on the stupid loans given various required regulations on any future loans and find what they can pay. If it turns out they're effectively paying rent on their house for the rest of their lives, so be it, but eventually the cost could be recouped without expecting to get it back in taxes(after spending taxes to do it). I have no intention of making it permanent, it'd be a one shot thing and from then on any bank that made such loans would be shot. But to leave people victims of lying loan agents(I still have "Grow into the payments echoing in my head") and claim ethical superiority is bunk. I'm not trying to be ethical, I'm not trying to be nice, I'm trying to keep the market from imploding under it's own stupidity, and I'm trying to do it without further feeding the stupidity. I'd happily cut the payment to the banks to a fraction of the principle, but they'd never accept it, they'd rather take their chances putting it on the market.
-
When I was going to buy my house and was getting qualified the bank to me I could get 250K. They're out of their minds. I had a budget and a monthly payment I wanted and that was it. This is where I think consumers start to get into trouble. If the bank, who should know best after all, says you can get a loan for X and afford it they're idiots. I all but told them so and left to go to another bank.
Christian Graus wrote:
I think a price crash will be a good thing overall, housing is probably getting too expensive, even in Australia's most affordable state. But, the real question is, how is it the fault of anyone bar the banks and people who borrow outside their means that a bubble was fed and will eventually burst ?
After your initial thread about this that was my conclusion. Even 11 acres in the country side isn't worth $600,000. I can get a lot more in Missouri for that than just 11 acres. It's not really any one person's fault that we have bubbles as near as I can tell. As long as we treat everything as a commodity to be exploited we're going to have bubbles. This includes people via wages and our health care through insurance premiums.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
Had I $600k I think I'd be buying a chunk of MO for some viticulture, having read this earlier I'm still thinking of vineyards. Wine is certainly one enduring passion in my life.
062142174041062102
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I bring home $1198.92 a fornight from my wage, the payment to the bank for my home is $2516.00 a month
I would like to know how je does that! Of course its a spoof letter.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I would suggest that it means that he does not live alone.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Had I $600k I think I'd be buying a chunk of MO for some viticulture, having read this earlier I'm still thinking of vineyards. Wine is certainly one enduring passion in my life.
062142174041062102
MidwestLimey wrote:
having read this earlier I'm still thinking of vineyards.
Looked into it. Don't. Messy business.
-
MidwestLimey wrote:
having read this earlier I'm still thinking of vineyards.
Looked into it. Don't. Messy business.
You thought about putting your acreage to use?
062142174041062102
-
You thought about putting your acreage to use?
062142174041062102
No, I thought about buying some existing acreage in Dorset. It was mostly orchard with some vineyard, which I thought might be a fun project. Closer investigation showed that the orchard made no money, and in fact lost it, whereas the vineyard could have been a winner, except it was tiny, had no standing in the grape-buying world (which I gather takes generations) and generally would have taken far more investment than it was worth to do anything about. Could have considered cider production, but the booze market is over saturated with "posh" cider at the moment and at the cheap end, you might as well not bother. Ultimately, making your own parsnip wine is probably more profitable!
-
No, I thought about buying some existing acreage in Dorset. It was mostly orchard with some vineyard, which I thought might be a fun project. Closer investigation showed that the orchard made no money, and in fact lost it, whereas the vineyard could have been a winner, except it was tiny, had no standing in the grape-buying world (which I gather takes generations) and generally would have taken far more investment than it was worth to do anything about. Could have considered cider production, but the booze market is over saturated with "posh" cider at the moment and at the cheap end, you might as well not bother. Ultimately, making your own parsnip wine is probably more profitable!
I don't know about parsnips, but I do find homemade cider quite inebriating delectable.
062142174041062102
-
Pretty much. One minor issue has been holding me back for about the last year and a half and keeping me from riding, which would otherwise cure all my ills. :-D I need to get a couple of disks in my neck replaced, and the insurance coverage we've had for the last 7 years or so totally sucks (a big factor in our current predicament). The only option offered is fusion of the vertebrae. Don't know if you know anything about it, but it is not exactly a state of the art fix; irreversible and, at it's heart, really pretty primitive. There is a much better option, been in use in Europe for over a decade, probably there too (artificial disk/disk replacement), but the FDA only approved it for use here I think 2 years ago now, and only a few insurers cover it. However... one of the changes coming down in the next few weeks involves new insurance coverage on a really good plan for federal employees, from one of those few providers. And if it's covered (not sure yet), I definitely made the right choice by waiting for the right fix. :)
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
artificial disk/disk replacement
That one is scary to me. I don't like the idea of someone getting that close to my spinal cord. :~ But we will see what I think if the pain comes back/gets worse. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And it wasn't for lack of trying, trust me. We tried the hell out of it for #2 for a year. Not that I am complaining.
Yeah, quit yer bitchin', #3 wasn't exactly planned. My wife's just glad we didn't meet as teenagers ;)
062142174041062102