If it's a great time to buy a house why aren't more people doing it?
a. It really isn't.
b. People want to but can't.
c. Good time for thee but not for me.
d. Some of all of that.
It is probably a great time to buy a residence to rent out (preferably multi-family unit, but even single family in places). It is also probably a great to buy if you are able and planning on staying in one place for a while.
No matter how great a time it may be, if you can't get access to funds, you can't buy. It is almost never a great time if you are uncertain about your future (as many are), or if you do not expect to be around for long. If you live somewhere that all the "deals" are foreclosures in need of a lot of work, and/or all the houses available are still very expensive then it may not be a great time in a more general sense.
It's probably a great time for investors (landlords) to buy, but for regular, owner occupier types, it's a crappy economy and things aren't so easy.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Violent Nature?
After reading Bobo's latest bit-o-useless crap, I am posting something I've been thinking more about lately: the place of violence in human nature and society. It seems like I am hearing more about how violent and destructive people (yes, particularly men) are...
I was on the opposite side of a discussion over the weekend where violence [by men] against women was said to be remnant of a time when men would kill other men (for women), but since they only beat/abused/subdued the women, the female of the species was better off then the [dead] male.
Shows like Doomsday Preppers and the individuals who are akin to that mentality all assume that once something [very] bad happens that we will regress to a barbaric, violent culture pretty much immediately. It's a weird notion that a tiny slip from modern society would so quickly--in the minds of some--result in my willingness to kill someone for their canned goods. I really think it says more about the mindset of the preppers than it does the rest of society.
Really, though, that isn't the way humanity and society work. We are not so...fragile(?) as that. Violence actually makes little sense in most cases, and in reality the people who exhibit violence are either in an extreme situation or are mentally deficient or ill.
Individuals have families and societies have a sense of security and trust that are necessary for them to function and thrive. If one person injures or kills another that person should then expect others to do the same. It is a very isolated way of living. Because this further means living in constant fear of someone else hurting/killing you, it is also a much less productive way of living.
So we group together. This offers some security (if someone wants to hurt an individual in the group that person is far less likely to get away with it), and because of that it also allows for people to expend more effort on non-security related issues. There is still, however, the threat of group on group violence.
Minimizing the group on group violence threat can be accomplished by growing the group sizes. The larger the group the harder an attack would be, and the more resources it would consume (e.g. war). The better use of time and effort is directed internally. But that growth improves technology which, along with other benefits, will mean more effective possible violence.
Group size/technology mismatch is a back and forth that was, for large nations, pretty much resolved by the end of the cold war: the technology exist to utterly destroy human civilization, so no gain can be made. The trade off here is that the size of the societies that are necessary to avert this level of violence runs somewhat counter to the ability to deter individual violence.
In the US individual violence is deterred by local sub-groups of the overall society that is the USA. In descending size: federal police, state/park police, local police, neighborhood/community groups/organizations/residents, and family which could be a literal family or friends or a close-knit subset of a neighborhood. In countries like Afghanistan, where the top 3-4 levels are weak and/or corrupt internally, that leaves the last, but in the vacuum between the top and bottom exists lots of space for mid-group on group violence, and so a place for tribal warfare and groups like al qaeda.
Still, independent of enforcement, it is the case that violence is counter productive both from a societal and from an individual viewpoint. Even an event (war, solar flare, asteroid, disease, economic collapse) that would break down upper group levels would still leave a lot of social norms, because that will guarantee the best life for those remaining. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be massive suffering, especially in the short run, but the people/groups who will do the best on a longer time scale will be those who help, not those that hoard.
I was on the opposite side of a discussion over the weekend where violence [by men] against women was said to be remnant of a time when men would kill other men (for women), but since they only beat/abused/subdued the women, the female of the species was better off then the [dead] male.
Shows like Doomsday Preppers and the individuals who are akin to that mentality all assume that once something [very] bad happens that we will regress to a barbaric, violent culture pretty much immediately. It's a weird notion that a tiny slip from modern society would so quickly--in the minds of some--result in my willingness to kill someone for their canned goods. I really think it says more about the mindset of the preppers than it does the rest of society.
Really, though, that isn't the way humanity and society work. We are not so...fragile(?) as that. Violence actually makes little sense in most cases, and in reality the people who exhibit violence are either in an extreme situation or are mentally deficient or ill.
Individuals have families and societies have a sense of security and trust that are necessary for them to function and thrive. If one person injures or kills another that person should then expect others to do the same. It is a very isolated way of living. Because this further means living in constant fear of someone else hurting/killing you, it is also a much less productive way of living.
So we group together. This offers some security (if someone wants to hurt an individual in the group that person is far less likely to get away with it), and because of that it also allows for people to expend more effort on non-security related issues. There is still, however, the threat of group on group violence.
Minimizing the group on group violence threat can be accomplished by growing the group sizes. The larger the group the harder an attack would be, and the more resources it would consume (e.g. war). The better use of time and effort is directed internally. But that growth improves technology which, along with other benefits, will mean more effective possible violence.
Group size/technology mismatch is a back and forth that was, for large nations, pretty much resolved by the end of the cold war: the technology exist to utterly destroy human civilization, so no gain can be made. The trade off here is that the size of the societies that are necessary to avert this level of violence runs somewhat counter to the ability to deter individual violence.
In the US individual violence is deterred by local sub-groups of the overall society that is the USA. In descending size: federal police, state/park police, local police, neighborhood/community groups/organizations/residents, and family which could be a literal family or friends or a close-knit subset of a neighborhood. In countries like Afghanistan, where the top 3-4 levels are weak and/or corrupt internally, that leaves the last, but in the vacuum between the top and bottom exists lots of space for mid-group on group violence, and so a place for tribal warfare and groups like al qaeda.
Still, independent of enforcement, it is the case that violence is counter productive both from a societal and from an individual viewpoint. Even an event (war, solar flare, asteroid, disease, economic collapse) that would break down upper group levels would still leave a lot of social norms, because that will guarantee the best life for those remaining. This doesn't mean that there wouldn't be massive suffering, especially in the short run, but the people/groups who will do the best on a longer time scale will be those who help, not those that hoard.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Deep Thought
I bet that true statements by Bruce Bartlet are somehow better than the exact same statements would if made by Paul Krugman. (As, you know, he has been doing for years.)
Friday, March 02, 2012
The Disproportion of Buying Long and Selling Short
This is again evidenced in the Yelp IPO. A 60% spike from a meh-rated stock. That much of a jump means all the smart money that was able to get in at the initial price is back out of the stock now and will likely ignore it for a while.
This clearly indicates a problem with the way the financial system works. If I think that Yelp is a great company worth investing in long term it's easy: I can buy that stock and hold it until I die or the company does. But what if I think that Yelp is just an ok company and that its stock price is overvalued? Well, I could sell short but that just isn't the counter to buying long. It is the counter to buying short, and it is gambling on a fall in a very specific window of time.
I'm not sure that there is a real way to manage a long sell, however, so the only real alternative is: don't buy.
This clearly indicates a problem with the way the financial system works. If I think that Yelp is a great company worth investing in long term it's easy: I can buy that stock and hold it until I die or the company does. But what if I think that Yelp is just an ok company and that its stock price is overvalued? Well, I could sell short but that just isn't the counter to buying long. It is the counter to buying short, and it is gambling on a fall in a very specific window of time.
I'm not sure that there is a real way to manage a long sell, however, so the only real alternative is: don't buy.
Bills and Coins
Stories like this make me mostly happy. It makes lots of sense to scrap dollar bills, pennies and nickles, and to mint $1 (and probably $2) coins. The arguments against mostly run the gambit from inane to stupid: "It's always been there, it's reliable, it's a symbol of our nation's history, it's a symbol of our nation's economic strength." Really? Printing paper $1 bills is a symbol of economic strength? How, exactly?
About the closest thing to a sound argument is an odd one: we are in the midst of the lesser depression and printing paper dollars means jobs. Of course, I'm not so sure that it really means more jobs than switching to coins would--especially if we were to add a $2 coin along with killing the paper $1's--but since it's saving the government money, it probably means fewer jobs, which may not be able to be absorbed by the rest of our depressed economy.
Also, the congressional back and forth is very parochial politics (mining vs. paper industry) so seems more petty than it should, but that's also the way politics works (well, used to work). Still, the end is right and the means aren't actually bad so may as well support the people working toward this noble goal that is my personal preference :)-
About the closest thing to a sound argument is an odd one: we are in the midst of the lesser depression and printing paper dollars means jobs. Of course, I'm not so sure that it really means more jobs than switching to coins would--especially if we were to add a $2 coin along with killing the paper $1's--but since it's saving the government money, it probably means fewer jobs, which may not be able to be absorbed by the rest of our depressed economy.
Also, the congressional back and forth is very parochial politics (mining vs. paper industry) so seems more petty than it should, but that's also the way politics works (well, used to work). Still, the end is right and the means aren't actually bad so may as well support the people working toward this noble goal that is my personal preference :)-
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Mystifying...
In reading a pretty crappy piece (not linking it, bad reading) on how people earning $500k/year are suffering, there was another note about this guy (the original article was deleted, but a cached version was copied and pasted there), along with a link to his self-pitying farewell piece.
I hadn't read the farewell before and...Wow. Nevermind his lack of awareness about the internet and blogging in 2010, and let's ignore his utter delusion that he is something other than an upper middle class (or higher) ass hole. In the last paragraph he seems to suffer from a peculiar delusion that what he had said before was somehow correct and that it was all these personal attacks that give him a sad face. ...But he was wrong! Very, very wrong.
I suppose that if the personal attacks prevent this individual from spreading the garbage he was then the internet has become a better place? I really want to know what it would take to penetrate the thick skull as effectively as the internet did his apparently thin skin.
I hadn't read the farewell before and...Wow. Nevermind his lack of awareness about the internet and blogging in 2010, and let's ignore his utter delusion that he is something other than an upper middle class (or higher) ass hole. In the last paragraph he seems to suffer from a peculiar delusion that what he had said before was somehow correct and that it was all these personal attacks that give him a sad face. ...But he was wrong! Very, very wrong.
I suppose that if the personal attacks prevent this individual from spreading the garbage he was then the internet has become a better place? I really want to know what it would take to penetrate the thick skull as effectively as the internet did his apparently thin skin.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Frustrating Yet Unsurprising
So it has been scientifically shown that more educated conservatives are more likely to buy into false statements than less educated conservatives. Conversely, more educated liberals are more likely to be persuaded by facts.
As a well educated liberal this seems pretty damned apparent: facts have a liberal bias. Also, since this study is fact based, it is inevitable that educated conservatives will line up to blast the conclusions. Irony is not dead, it has just become reality.
As a well educated liberal this seems pretty damned apparent: facts have a liberal bias. Also, since this study is fact based, it is inevitable that educated conservatives will line up to blast the conclusions. Irony is not dead, it has just become reality.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Bankers Should Go to Jail
Not all of them, certainly, but if you manage to arrest the CEO or board members of just one bank engaging in crap like this story I heard this morning, then I'll bet we would start to see a whole lot less of that type crap. Also, too, foreclosure fraud.
Seriously: just arrest a few of 'em and sentence them to 5 years--maybe start with Jaime Dimon? Not nearly enough of a penalty for the harm they have inflicted and are inflicting, but it would get the rest in line right quick. Either that or they would "go Galt" and we would still have a better society as a result.
Seriously: just arrest a few of 'em and sentence them to 5 years--maybe start with Jaime Dimon? Not nearly enough of a penalty for the harm they have inflicted and are inflicting, but it would get the rest in line right quick. Either that or they would "go Galt" and we would still have a better society as a result.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Corporate Creepy!
This article on Target and marketing statistics is all kinds of creepy, but the goal I find perfectly reasonable and I'm ok with it. One of the comments said that the purpose of marketing was to make people buy things they don't need, but in a lot of cases it is to redirect the purchase of those things they don't need away from someone else.
A new mom may not need a baby crib at all, but there's a good chance she'll get one anyway, and so Target just wants to be the place she gets it. They aren't trying to change what she buys, just where she looks/buys it.
...doesn't make it not creepy:
A new mom may not need a baby crib at all, but there's a good chance she'll get one anyway, and so Target just wants to be the place she gets it. They aren't trying to change what she buys, just where she looks/buys it.
...doesn't make it not creepy:
About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.
“My daughter got this in the mail!” he said. “She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?”
The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.
On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a talk with my daughter,” he said. “It turns out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you an apology.”
Policy vs. Politics
I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as Atrios on this one. I think he, and lots of other professional or at least very involved members of "THE LEFT" have a pretty good handle on the politics of their preferred policies, but I don't think most do.
In general, I think that most people believe that their preferred policies are popular. And even those who are most certainly wrong can find/create polls that will support their belief on any particular issue--just think about US deficit/debt for a microsecond.
On the other hand there are also lots of ideas championed by people who know their pet idea is horribly unpopular, but are very confident that it is the best idea (the gas tax is a great example of this).
I have to admit that I've lost sight of what the pundits are there for. It seems that they should be there to explain policies and actions to people who don't understand, but that in practice all they do is use their position to tell people what they believe and that others should too! This isn't really all that different from what the army of bloggers does. To the extent that there are people who [seem to] get both the policy and the politics and who then try to convey that to others, I'd guess that fractions of political bloggers and pundits are about the same, but by sheer numbers, bloggers win.
...also, too, the more successful bloggers, like Atrios, are generally the better ones out there, so I guess the addendum is: compared to blogs that actually get read, pundits suck.
In general, I think that most people believe that their preferred policies are popular. And even those who are most certainly wrong can find/create polls that will support their belief on any particular issue--just think about US deficit/debt for a microsecond.
On the other hand there are also lots of ideas championed by people who know their pet idea is horribly unpopular, but are very confident that it is the best idea (the gas tax is a great example of this).
I have to admit that I've lost sight of what the pundits are there for. It seems that they should be there to explain policies and actions to people who don't understand, but that in practice all they do is use their position to tell people what they believe and that others should too! This isn't really all that different from what the army of bloggers does. To the extent that there are people who [seem to] get both the policy and the politics and who then try to convey that to others, I'd guess that fractions of political bloggers and pundits are about the same, but by sheer numbers, bloggers win.
...also, too, the more successful bloggers, like Atrios, are generally the better ones out there, so I guess the addendum is: compared to blogs that actually get read, pundits suck.
Wealth Allocation
As kind of a follow up to the "If I had $1,000,000..." post, I should say that personal security and investment are two different sides of wealth.
Having debt is a risk to security but a benefit to investment. If I am buying a house I will be living in, it is best to have it paid off because it is not generating income, so interest on debt is a net loss. If I am buying properties to rent out...with the caveat that I wouldn't buy them if the expected return was less than the interest on the debt, then I would be better served to have debt, because I could purchase more, and have more resulting income.
The leverage provided by going into debt to make a large purchase/investment is a huge advantage. But that does not really apply to purchases of items for personal use...even items that may appreciate in value (like houses and art). Mostly this is because working investments (like rental properties or starting small business) have better returns and can offset the debt service costs (interest). If they didn't, well, they wouldn't be good investments.
Having debt is a risk to security but a benefit to investment. If I am buying a house I will be living in, it is best to have it paid off because it is not generating income, so interest on debt is a net loss. If I am buying properties to rent out...with the caveat that I wouldn't buy them if the expected return was less than the interest on the debt, then I would be better served to have debt, because I could purchase more, and have more resulting income.
The leverage provided by going into debt to make a large purchase/investment is a huge advantage. But that does not really apply to purchases of items for personal use...even items that may appreciate in value (like houses and art). Mostly this is because working investments (like rental properties or starting small business) have better returns and can offset the debt service costs (interest). If they didn't, well, they wouldn't be good investments.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Potential Output & The Gap
I know that it gets much more complex, but economic history seems to be pretty clear to me:
Below "potential" output -> low inflation to deflation
Above "potential" output -> price-wage inflation spiral
Potential is in quotes because it really should be ideal or peak efficiency or something else (in some ways it shouldn't be possible to be above potential output). "Potential" output is pretty much "what we could make with full employment" though "full" employment in the US generally means ~4.5% unemployment, and maybe workforce participation is an even better gauge.
Anyway, there is an argument at exactly where that "potential" output should be, but the historic trend should give us a pretty clear indicator of whether we are above or below, and even by how much. Right now it would indicate that we are well below.
Below "potential" output -> low inflation to deflation
Above "potential" output -> price-wage inflation spiral
Potential is in quotes because it really should be ideal or peak efficiency or something else (in some ways it shouldn't be possible to be above potential output). "Potential" output is pretty much "what we could make with full employment" though "full" employment in the US generally means ~4.5% unemployment, and maybe workforce participation is an even better gauge.
Anyway, there is an argument at exactly where that "potential" output should be, but the historic trend should give us a pretty clear indicator of whether we are above or below, and even by how much. Right now it would indicate that we are well below.
Meh...
Can't...get...outraged...by this crap.
Kos seems to have pissed off a lot of people by suggesting something that seems very sensible from an individual position. Maybe it's the "organization" part of it, or the "Rush did it too" thang that's got 'em going.
If I still lived (as I have before) in a state with an open primary, then I would vote in the primary that was the most relevant. This year, it would probably be the Republican one because there is nothing really going on on the Democratic side (no Dems running against Obama, or Casey and I think not my US Rep either, though that may not be straightened out yet).
I was in Illinois in 2006 when lots of Dems voted on the GOP ticket because they were so pissed at Blago...though as things turned out many would have been better off voting Rod off in the Dem primary, but that didn't seem a viable option to many. They weren't doing it to screw over Republicans, they were doing it because there was a strong suspicion that the GOP would win back the governor's mansion and Dems wanted the least offensive GOPer on the ticket.
States that have open primaries have open primaries. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, et cetera should vote on the primary ballot that suits them best, even if it isn't their party.
Maybe it's the idea of doing this to screw with the opposition is the objection, but that's part of best interests. If the Democrats have an important primary, vote on that one, if not vote on another. Going to the polls is part of democracy, and everyone should vote based on how they see the best outcome: whether voting for someone you want to win in the fall or voting for someone you think can't win so that the person you want to win has a better shot.
Oh, and the references to Hitler...seriously? What the fuck is wrong with people?!?
Kos seems to have pissed off a lot of people by suggesting something that seems very sensible from an individual position. Maybe it's the "organization" part of it, or the "Rush did it too" thang that's got 'em going.
If I still lived (as I have before) in a state with an open primary, then I would vote in the primary that was the most relevant. This year, it would probably be the Republican one because there is nothing really going on on the Democratic side (no Dems running against Obama, or Casey and I think not my US Rep either, though that may not be straightened out yet).
I was in Illinois in 2006 when lots of Dems voted on the GOP ticket because they were so pissed at Blago...though as things turned out many would have been better off voting Rod off in the Dem primary, but that didn't seem a viable option to many. They weren't doing it to screw over Republicans, they were doing it because there was a strong suspicion that the GOP would win back the governor's mansion and Dems wanted the least offensive GOPer on the ticket.
States that have open primaries have open primaries. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, et cetera should vote on the primary ballot that suits them best, even if it isn't their party.
Maybe it's the idea of doing this to screw with the opposition is the objection, but that's part of best interests. If the Democrats have an important primary, vote on that one, if not vote on another. Going to the polls is part of democracy, and everyone should vote based on how they see the best outcome: whether voting for someone you want to win in the fall or voting for someone you think can't win so that the person you want to win has a better shot.
Oh, and the references to Hitler...seriously? What the fuck is wrong with people?!?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Austerity: The Cure That Kills
Totally preventable suffering of real people, so that the moneylenders can get their pound of flesh. I'm don't really care if our rulers are stupid, evil, or (most likely) both. This is just horrible. The article concludes:
Why, Mr. Lains asks, should he and his fellow citizens suffer while the bondholders get their money back? “It’s not the fault of the Portuguese people,” he said. “The fault lies with the structure of the euro.”People suffer, the economy craters, but the bankers must be paid off! Too bad no one that actually understands things gets to affect outcomes.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Horay Science!
Wine is good for you is one of those things we've been aware of for a while now, but specifics were not really clear. Well, here is one. And for the teetotalers out there: eat grapes I guess.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Hope He's Learned, But I've Doubts
This article by Noam Scheiber is a good (and a frustrating) piece to read. In the end we are left hanging with: has Obama learned, or is he just preparing for the next self-induced crisis?
I see little evidence that Obama has learned here, and that is the frustrating thing. His current posturing and positions seem good, but they are also necessary, in the same way that it was finally necessary for him to get aggressive toward Hillary on the campaign trail.
Maybe Democrats will win, and Obama will think that the GOP has been chastened and will now listen to reason. In fact, if Dems win, that seems far more likely than this continued, tough and sensible presidential offering we are witnessing.
Of course, this is only economic issues. Nevermind the still horrible civil liberties a issues, which are unchanging as ever.
I see little evidence that Obama has learned here, and that is the frustrating thing. His current posturing and positions seem good, but they are also necessary, in the same way that it was finally necessary for him to get aggressive toward Hillary on the campaign trail.
Maybe Democrats will win, and Obama will think that the GOP has been chastened and will now listen to reason. In fact, if Dems win, that seems far more likely than this continued, tough and sensible presidential offering we are witnessing.
Of course, this is only economic issues. Nevermind the still horrible civil liberties a issues, which are unchanging as ever.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Um...K
So the contraception "compromise" is in and so what? Doesn't change the outcome (women will still get contraception coverage) so it really isn't any different. The cost shifting is more-or-less meaningless as the church still pays for insurance, and that insurance will still have coverage, the church is, effectively, going to be paying for coverage. The insurance companies may redistribute the cost so that other people will pay more and the church pay less, but really, so what?
Mysteriously, however, the compromise made some people (well, pundits) happy. That really doesn't make sense. I'm happy, because, basically nothing changed, and similarly the bishops [should be] unhappy because...basically nothing changed. Their complaint wasn't that the cost was too much but that they oppose contraception (a patently stupid position, particularly for the anti-abortion crowd...who actually object to unapproved fucking and don't really care about women's or children's health at all). They oppose contraception, and were being forced to buy plans that provide contraception. Nothing changed except they pay a little less.
Meanwhile this bullshit problem would never exist if we had done health care properly (Medicare for everyone!) instead of enacting GOP health care reform.
Mysteriously, however, the compromise made some people (well, pundits) happy. That really doesn't make sense. I'm happy, because, basically nothing changed, and similarly the bishops [should be] unhappy because...basically nothing changed. Their complaint wasn't that the cost was too much but that they oppose contraception (a patently stupid position, particularly for the anti-abortion crowd...who actually object to unapproved fucking and don't really care about women's or children's health at all). They oppose contraception, and were being forced to buy plans that provide contraception. Nothing changed except they pay a little less.
Meanwhile this bullshit problem would never exist if we had done health care properly (Medicare for everyone!) instead of enacting GOP health care reform.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Bad Settlement
From the "how does it affect me" files...
I'm really not sure how it works that "depending on the banks that fucked everyone over to not continue fucking people over" constitutes a remotely sane idea. The banks must be laughing all the way to themselves.
Quick overview: if you're $50k underwater on your $175k mortgage but are up to date then you get a lower interest refi (iff the banks find you "worthy") but if you stopped paying a few months back, then you may get a $20k principal reduction, and if the bank illegally foreclosed on you--even if you were current and whether or not you were underwater...even had equity, even if you were in the last year of payments!--then you may get as much as $2k!
...So the people who got the best deal are those who are underwater and behind in payments, but haven't been foreclosed on yet? While those who had their houses stolen by the bank may get up to $2k, and those who are underwater but have managed to make ends meet get next to nothing? WTF?!?
What should I do if I think I may qualify for a principal reduction or refinanced mortgage? Contact your lender/servicer and ask them to review your case.So just ask [Wells Fargo} to review your case! And I'm sure they will be perfectly happy to help you and to get less money for themselves! Because banks aren't bad people!
I'm really not sure how it works that "depending on the banks that fucked everyone over to not continue fucking people over" constitutes a remotely sane idea. The banks must be laughing all the way to themselves.
Quick overview: if you're $50k underwater on your $175k mortgage but are up to date then you get a lower interest refi (iff the banks find you "worthy") but if you stopped paying a few months back, then you may get a $20k principal reduction, and if the bank illegally foreclosed on you--even if you were current and whether or not you were underwater...even had equity, even if you were in the last year of payments!--then you may get as much as $2k!
...So the people who got the best deal are those who are underwater and behind in payments, but haven't been foreclosed on yet? While those who had their houses stolen by the bank may get up to $2k, and those who are underwater but have managed to make ends meet get next to nothing? WTF?!?
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Bank Bailout Redoux
Seems to be the real result of the great foreclosure fraud settlement. The banksters do rule our world.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
SEPTA Nonsense
View Larger Map
I live fairly close to possibly the highest demand regional rail station SEPTA operates. It's a great station because 3-4 (depending on how you count) lines converge and go through it, and it's about a 25 min ride to downtown, 50 min to the airport, ~40 min to the sports complexes (drive times from this point are very similar).
Naturally, therefore, SEPTA wants to take advantage and build
All of the roads that lead here are narrow, 2-lane, 25 mph, and some with street parking and/or no painted lines! This is not an area to try and bring extra traffic to, not because [NIMBY] but because the roads don't support it, and while the plans do improve traffic in and out of the lot/across the bridge, they don't do anything about the feeder roads--because they can't.
On top of this the cost is something insane (in the neighborhood of $100k/parking space added), and SEPTA refuses to even attempt simple fixes to the problem that the garage is supposed to address (lowering fares from further out, increasing parking tolls). It's a giant clusterfuck of a bad idea that just won't die (though it has been pushed back).
The ideal solution would be luxury mid-rise (even low-rise) apartments or condos, which could, if done right, sell for a mint. They could also help to accelerate the revitalization of the nearby downtowns (there are 3). Oh, and the closed bar/restaurant in the station--the one SEPTA wants $6k/mo rent for--could conceivably be opened and operated at a profit as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)