Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On Mar 21, 7:59 am, "Larry L" wrote:
and they're not yuppies.

I think we need a new word to be used for people caught up in what is ....
to me.... an obvious cultural surge of consumption, for the sake of
consumption.

Sure, all humans have always liked nice things and comfortable surroundings
but, at least where I live and observe the world, there has been a big
change in the last couple generations.

I agree and have noticed this as well. I wonder if it isn't a normal
thing which feels exaggerated due to a couple demographic
abnormalities.

- The depression generation was abnormal. What they went
through changed the way they thought about money and
possessions. My grandparents just couldn't spend money.
They scrimped and saved even though they had a
considerable amount of money.

- The huge baby boomer generation is in that point of their
lives where they are comfortable, have money and are
enjoying what they have earned.

I think the stark contrast between these two groups is
why things seem so unbalanced. I think the availability
and abuse of credit is a contributing factor, but I don't
the change is in the generations following the boomers.

Eh, just my lunchtime ramblings...we now return you
to your regularly scheduled catfight on "hauling"
already in progress,
- Ken

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

No time for a complete "join-the-thread" reply, but...

On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, " wrote:

- The depression generation was abnormal.

I've gotta disagree...what they went through is entirely normal for
the vast majority of people who have lived, and even for a majority of
people alive today. It's the mcmansion-starbucks-twiceaday-chargeit
lifestyle that is abnormal (and won't last for long).

Jon.

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On Mar 21, 2:18 pm, wrote:
No time for a complete "join-the-thread" reply, but...

On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, " wrote:

- The depression generation was abnormal.

I've gotta disagree...what they went through is entirely normal for
the vast majority of people who have lived, and even for a majority of
people alive today. It's the mcmansion-starbucks-twiceaday-chargeit
lifestyle that is abnormal (and won't last for long).

Jon.

I should have specified "within the United States".

I have to admit to being curious about what will happen
when the boomers start to die off. My MIL tries to justify
her "antiques" habit by saying that it's our inheritance
when she dies. I enjoy telling her that when all the
"antiques" get dumped on the market from all the
estate sales they won't be worth what she paid for
them.
- Ken

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

wrote in message
...
that it appears from the current data that the percentage of loans,
subprime or otherwise, likely to go to foreclosure isn't that large a
percentage of the total mortgage picture.

TC,
R

I don't know about that one. I do know that the more conservative banks
haven't picked up a lot of the subprime residential loans due to obvious
risks, but I did read a recent article stating that the number of late
payers
on mortgage loans is ticking upward. Apparently, they track the figure of
late-payment percentage on a rolling three-month basis, and it is starting
to creep up towards
4% of all mortgage-holders. This could reflect a real problem down the road,
or it could merely be a short-term thing, reflecting people re-tooling their
personal finances. I do know a few of the more conservative banking
institutions bailed out of the unsecured credit
business a couple years back, and that might signal a real
economic fear of sorts.
This has been an interesting thread. I agree with the overall consensus
that we have evolved into a society that
"consumes" at an alarming pace, in a very irresponsible fashion. Sadly, the
trend for "possessions" has trended ever upward. I put "possessions" in
quotes as we all know that the true possessors of those oversized,
overpriced homes, the SUV's, boats and all, are actually the lenders, not
the fools who purchased them.
Tom

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:31:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote


I saw nothing to do with the actual definition of "liberal."


I can't accept that you honestly believe I sat out to "define" liberal,
several years back when I wrote the piece.

I had no idea you wrote the piece at the link. I saw your reply and
thought it was in response to my suggestion of researching what
"liberal" meant.

In case you are not intentionally being dense G

I'm never "dense," intentionally or otherwise...OTOH, I am sometimes,
with intent and purpose, um, "Socratically obtuse"...SEE! SEE!


.... it was "about" how and, I believe why,
the word has come to be used in some circles almost as a curse word.
FWIW, the effectiveness of the tactic has diminished the last few years and
it's not as often now that we here people branded "liberal" as an attack and
easy way to dismiss everything they say or think ... regardless


TC,
R
...who actually is a liberal...because I know what it means...


I seldom agree with much you write here, and I'd bet you sometimes don't
either G But both halves of the sentence quoted above ring true to me.


Larry L ( who likes being called liberal by people that have some idea what
it really means, but who knows that doesn't include a great many people that
love to use the word without that benefit of knowledge .... thus my "abused
and misused" statement )

Ah.

TC,
R

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On 21 Mar 2007 11:32:00 -0700, "Ethan" wrote:

Here is is a link an interesting, albeit a bit long, video about money
as debt, and it applies to the current housing situation. It might
change the way you think about our whole monetary system.

For me, it gave proof to a theory/question I had about why we as a
society are must have growth, not sustainability. Why we are bound to
profit and not simple comfrotable provision.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=money+as+debt

If you care to summarize, I'll read that summary, but I'm not saying
debt is bad, I'm saying bad debt is not good. Debt can actually net a
person or company money as long as it is appropriate debt that can be
properly serviced. Buying a McMansion that one doesn't need and can't
really afford is not "debt," it's financial stupidity. The fact that
someone can arrange a loan to accomplish (temporarily) such a thing
doesn't make it any better nor does it shift from the mortgagor the
responsibility in the action.

TC,
R

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On 21 Mar 2007 12:08:30 -0700, "BJ Conner"
wrote:

On Mar 21, 6:47 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.

The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The ones that originated the loans factored them off as soon as they
could. The people that own those big MacMansions are Quiwait, Saudi,
China, Japan and some are in Europe ( not as many as there use to be).
When they come over to collect on the Treasury bonds they hold they
can probably move into one of the hundreds of thousands of houses they
will own.
If you have toured one on the track MacMansions you know the jokes on
them. For the most part they are cheap and built to have square
footage with quality second. I am not sure what the cost ratio is for
material/selling price in a new house is but it's gotta be low. If I
was young and wanted a house these days I think the smart thing to do
would be to take six months off and build one.

Er, yeah...it's them ragheads (and them cameljockeys from Quiwait is
especially bad), gooks, and a smattering of assorted Eurotrash...lemme
guess: you do nothing but live, eat, and sleep economics and finance, 12
hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and regularly explain
things to the greatest experts in world...or you have a PhD in economics
from Harvard...

Y'all is all Kenyans now,
(Tricky) Dickie
....who never was much of a Keynesian...

Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
 

On Mar 21, 10:07 pm, wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 12:08:30 -0700, "BJ Conner"
wrote:





On Mar 21, 6:47 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote :
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on
too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too
lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie
****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood....

Doubting this will help much,
R
...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought
not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer...

agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that
the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots
who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO.

The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already
cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to
unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances
and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding
the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to
live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of
loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies.

As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell
bad mortgages disguised as good ones.

--
Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The ones that originated the loans factored them off as soon as they
could. The people that own those big MacMansions are Quiwait, Saudi,
China, Japan and some are in Europe ( not as many as there use to be).
When they come over to collect on the Treasury bonds they hold they
can probably move into one of the hundreds of thousands of houses they
will own.
If you have toured one on the track MacMansions you know the jokes on
them. For the most part they are cheap and built to have square
footage with quality second. I am not sure what the cost ratio is for
material/selling price in a new house is but it's gotta be low. If I
was young and wanted a house these days I think the smart thing to do
would be to take six months off and build one.

Er, yeah...it's them ragheads (and them cameljockeys from Quiwait is
especially bad), gooks, and a smattering of assorted Eurotrash...lemme
guess: you do nothing but live, eat, and sleep economics and finance, 12
hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and regularly explain
things to the greatest experts in world...or you have a PhD in economics
from Harvard...

Y'all is all Kenyans now,
(Tricky) Dickie
...who never was much of a Keynesian...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you taking your pickle proffits and moving to Dubai with the rest
or the thieve?