In article
<f102ef10-fe8c-4271-ba06-474e2ff06f0e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Karel Kriz wrote:
> > In article <66624jF2huimiU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Stan R <aus086@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > So how are the US-based correspondents coping with this?
> > >
> > > Both Charlie Cross and George Zimek live in California, which seems
to
> > > have been not only on the forefront of the green madness, but also
> > > leading the pack on the residential property bubble.
> > >
> > > With $1 trillion of losses now becoming the "accepted" wisdom and
with
> > > literally tens of millions of Americans looking down the barrel of
> > > negative home equity and the "jingle mail" option looking more
> > > attractive by the day, how have you guys been affected?
> > >
> > > To be honest, Australia has had even more of a property bubble than
the
> > > US and the blow up is only just beginning here - like in the UK & NZ
and
> > > elsewhere. This will be exacerbated by the recent election of a
totally
> > > inept Labor government (in Aus.) and I have no doubt many
Australians
> > > will be in for a rude shock when they discover property in fact does
not
> > > always go up in value, nor are their jobs guaranteed to last
forever.
> > >
> > > It will certainly be interesting to see how it all develops, given
that
> > > "jingle mail" is not an option for Australians (the banks do have
> > > recourse to your other assets if your home auction does not cover
the
> > > debt).
> > >
> > > The word "depression" seems to be gaining traction, however. If/when
the
> > > $145 trillion credit derivative sector blows up, then it's all over
and
> > > anything is possible.
> > >
> > > Stress levels at work over the last three or so months do make me
look
> > > wistfully at islands for sale in Tonga/Vanuatu, with no power, no
> > > Internet and no phones, so as to get away from it all...
> > >
> > > Your comments would be welcome.
> >
> > Personally, the current depression/recession has not affected us. This
> > is not so much by design, but by luck. We bought our house in 98 for
> > $217,000. In January 2007 I could have sold it for about $620,000.
Now,
> > if I got $450, I'd consider myself lucky. So some of the equity that
> > built up, is gone, but that's money we never had so we don't miss it.
> > But in the height of the borrowing frenzy we nearly jumped on the
> > bandwagon and made some half hearted moves to speculate in real
estate.
> > In those days, up to early last year, anyone with detectable signs of
> > life could get a home loan. But, for various reasons, we didn't get
into
> > it and now we are actually thankful we didn't. One of the homes we
> > almost bought, burned to the ground in last year fires.
> >
> > Our neighbor is a realtor and she has some horror stories of
> > bankruptcies, foreclosures and suicides. It appears that Riverside and
> > San Bernardino counties are most affected. I have a home builder
client
> > in Riverside County who stopped all work on new homes and reduced his
> > staff to maybe 10 people from about a hundred. In Las Vegas, 50% of
> > homes that are for sale, are empty - bought by speculators.
> >
> > I have no illusions. This will not turn overnight. So we hunker down,
> > spend less and make no extravagant moves. The boat I was going to buy
> > last year, will not happen. We've raised our fees a bit, gently, not
to
> > start losing clients. Personally, we'll be OK. The super rich in
New****t
> > Beach are not touched by this. Most of middle class will be OK. The
> > people who will bear the brunt are the lower middle class who
> > overextended themselves.
> >
> > The idea of an isolated island sound pretty good.
> >
> > K
>
> Karel Kriz wrote:
> > In article <66624jF2huimiU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > Stan R <aus086@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > So how are the US-based correspondents coping with this?
> > >
> > > Both Charlie Cross and George Zimek live in California, which seems
to
> > > have been not only on the forefront of the green madness, but also
> > > leading the pack on the residential property bubble.
> > >
> > > With $1 trillion of losses now becoming the "accepted" wisdom and
with
> > > literally tens of millions of Americans looking down the barrel of
> > > negative home equity and the "jingle mail" option looking more
> > > attractive by the day, how have you guys been affected?
> > >
> > > To be honest, Australia has had even more of a property bubble than
the
> > > US and the blow up is only just beginning here - like in the UK & NZ
and
> > > elsewhere. This will be exacerbated by the recent election of a
totally
> > > inept Labor government (in Aus.) and I have no doubt many
Australians
> > > will be in for a rude shock when they discover property in fact does
not
> > > always go up in value, nor are their jobs guaranteed to last
forever.
> > >
> > > It will certainly be interesting to see how it all develops, given
that
> > > "jingle mail" is not an option for Australians (the banks do have
> > > recourse to your other assets if your home auction does not cover
the
> > > debt).
> > >
> > > The word "depression" seems to be gaining traction, however. If/when
the
> > > $145 trillion credit derivative sector blows up, then it's all over
and
> > > anything is possible.
> > >
> > > Stress levels at work over the last three or so months do make me
look
> > > wistfully at islands for sale in Tonga/Vanuatu, with no power, no
> > > Internet and no phones, so as to get away from it all...
> > >
> > > Your comments would be welcome.
> >
> > Personally, the current depression/recession has not affected us. This
> > is not so much by design, but by luck. We bought our house in 98 for
> > $217,000. In January 2007 I could have sold it for about $620,000.
Now,
> > if I got $450, I'd consider myself lucky. So some of the equity that
> > built up, is gone, but that's money we never had so we don't miss it.
> > But in the height of the borrowing frenzy we nearly jumped on the
> > bandwagon and made some half hearted moves to speculate in real
estate.
> > In those days, up to early last year, anyone with detectable signs of
> > life could get a home loan. But, for various reasons, we didn't get
into
> > it and now we are actually thankful we didn't. One of the homes we
> > almost bought, burned to the ground in last year fires.
> >
> > Our neighbor is a realtor and she has some horror stories of
> > bankruptcies, foreclosures and suicides. It appears that Riverside and
> > San Bernardino counties are most affected. I have a home builder
client
> > in Riverside County who stopped all work on new homes and reduced his
> > staff to maybe 10 people from about a hundred. In Las Vegas, 50% of
> > homes that are for sale, are empty - bought by speculators.
> >
> > I have no illusions. This will not turn overnight. So we hunker down,
> > spend less and make no extravagant moves. The boat I was going to buy
> > last year, will not happen. We've raised our fees a bit, gently, not
to
> > start losing clients. Personally, we'll be OK. The super rich in
New****t
> > Beach are not touched by this. Most of middle class will be OK. The
> > people who will bear the brunt are the lower middle class who
> > overextended themselves.
> >
> > The idea of an isolated island sound pretty good.
> >
> > K
>
> The only two remarkable aspects of the current financial
> crisis are its root cause, and the way it's being ****trayed
> in the media. It is quite astoni****ng to compare present
> day perception of how capitalism is supposed to work to
> the way Americans used to think 40 years ago. To most
> people today, when one makes a profit from an investment,
> that's capitalism, but when one loses money in a risky,
> or ill-conceived economic venture, that's not capitalism.
> That is some sort of foul play, and a reason for government
> involvement (i.e. socialism). When people sign one of these
> newfangled mortgage contracts knowing full well they could
> not get into the housing market any other way, and that they
> quite likely are not going to be able to make payments
> two or three years down the road, they deserve what they
> get, which is not necessarily and immediate foreclosure
> followed by an eviction, as in the case of this young Stock-
> ton couple, which decided to squat in their own home,
> waiting for a government bailout:
There is no better way to say this, but your brain has turned to mush.
A government intervention does not equate "socialism". Look up the
definition of what socialism is...oh, I forget, you lived in it, you
should know.
Government "intervention" as you so prissily put it, is nothing new in
this country. From Roosevelts New Deal, through the S and L crises (was
that under Reagan or GB Senior, I forget) and lately Bear Stearns and
many others in the middle. But you, being the king of overstatement make
it sound as though OUR present government is going to save every poor
****er who spent his mortgage money on crack cocaine and can't pay, when
that is simply not the case. They are more likely to bail out the
lenders losing their ****rt on their bad loans.
The lenders bear some blame in this fiasco. They lent money to the wrong
people under some pretty indecent conditions. They were greedy and it
bit them in the ass. Are we going to rescue them? Probably, there will
be some help and some of the poor ****ers about to get evicted will get
some help too. Because to NOT help them is a political suicide, so there
will a be a plan, largely unworkable, put it will exist. The Stockton
couple...I have not read the article...this is not about anecdotes and
weird behavior.
The government is meant to belong to us. It is not some entity that you
hate because it's obese and dies nothing. It is meant to work for us and
that includes an "intervention" when things go awry...
Ultimately, that is how civilized society is meant to work, but you
don't understand "civilized". You understand every man for himself and
**** the neighbor in trouble. How you can equate that with the
monumental waste of money and resources called IRAQ?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3vhw94
>
> And what about those who suffer the same market value
> decline on their home, but decide to stick it out? And what
> about the mortgage backed securities investors, who have
> to take 20 - 30% losses according to the latest legislative
> proposals. These are the same people who were scared
> away from the stocks by the bankers' interest rate mani-
> pulations, which led to the 8 years of "rational skepticism"
> in the equity markets, which has been one of the principal
> sources of overfunding the real estate market. Which led
> to the current mess by financing homes which should
> have not been built, and mortgages, which didn't make
> any sense.
Maybe so, but that is capitalism for you...people get greedy and build
homes. They don't really think about whether it should be done or not,
as long as they sell them and make a bit of dough, all is well. Do you
want to be the one to tell them they should not? Is that not a like
government intervention? Sounds like everyone is wrong and you are
always right...ahh, if only they listened to you....
The lesson from all this to most people should
> be to realize that there is no shuch thing as a safe investment.
> I think that is all our economy needs at this point. I also
> think the leftwing media will do everything they can to keep
> that realization from sinking in.
Where is that "leftwingmedia". I keep looking for it and I can't find
it...
>
> Does that make sense, Mr Kriz?
Actually, precious little sense in here. Sorry.
|
