Ethics of Real Estate Investment, NIMYism and the Housing Crisis

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Boost_Crazy said:

I didn't post those links, you did. You should have been the one to vet them. After I see Huff Post, I don't feel the need to spend my time checking your other sources. 

You got so offended that one article was from Huffington Post, that it sent you typing a paragraphs-long tirade; Talk about letting something live rent-free in your head lmao, why should anyone keep talking to you if you don't read what they post and try to understand it?

Tell ya what, stop trying to protect banks that have already been found guilty, start proving your point with evidence, and I'll tell you about myself.

I wasn't offended by you selecting the Huffington Post as "evidence," I was disappointed. I never said I didn't read your links. I said I didn't vet them. I don't know to what degree they can be trusted. While I feel it is always wise to question sources, your inclusion of the Huffington Post made me strongly question the validity of your other sources. You vomited half a dozen sources with hundred of pages into the thread. Quantity does not trump quality when it comes to research. I read/skimmed through them. While there was some good info, they appeared to be incomplete. It's like reading an accident report that tells you the mechanics of the accident, but leaves out key info on the cause.

Again, since you never answered the question- who were the victims? 
 

I'm not defending the banks. But all of your linked research starts at the banks and skips the part where people willingly signed on the dotted line. Not only do you appear to skip over that very important part, you stated that they were preyed upon. How do you get to a conclusion if you don't even know where you are starting from? 

 

This actually seems a lot more predatory than what the banks might have done on mortgages.

https://moneywise.com/investing/stocks/corporate-landlords-like-blackstone-are-gobbling-up-mobile-home-parks

I used to live in a mobile home park in Denver that Sam Zell's company later bought out. He doubled rents and added all kinds of fees. If your friend comes over or you park in the wrong place in front of your own place, a cars get towed and more fees get assessed. It's a rather nasty place to live if you have a low income, and I know this first hand. Everybody there who has been there for a long time is trying to find someplace better to live now. I have no idea what kind of "higher income" tenants you can attract to a mobile home park. I never thought of mobile home parks as any kind of luxury housing, but now that housing is insane, who knows. They are charging over $1,000 a month now and rents keep going up, up, up. When I lived there my lot rent was $230 a month and the owner was a local guy who was a client of the law firm I worked for.

Yeah. I got my graduate degree and got out  of that parking lot as soon as I could. Yeah. I worked hard and bought myself a house. Yeah. I could buy stock in the company and be a pirate too. But still. This is a park full of old mobile homes in a place that gets below zero in the winter. The one I lived in was built in 1967 and according to Google Maps it is still in the park. It was falling apart when I owned it. I remember climbing on the roof and sealing it with tar one summer. These are poor people. These are old trailers that cost a lot to heat. The Carlyle Group and sovereign wealth funds are doing this?

Wow.

Just wow.  

GameboyRMH said:

z31maniac said:

Ok, frenchy has proven why his first account was banned. I would say more, but I don't want to be banned. 

Now to the original topic, I can't believe it's lasted this long of people saying the same thing over and over knowing they aren't going to convince the other person. Perhaps pheller and his above average lifestyle and gameboy who left his country to go somewhere else should give up the shtick. 

Lets worry about real problems. Look up how polluted the ganges or the Citarum rivers are, look at the squalor the vast majority of people live in, and you're worried about people who have a home, cell phone, cable TV, car, easy access to food and medicine.

A country that isn't interested in fixing poverty inside its borders will have even less interest and means to fix poverty outside of them. A lot of that pollution and poverty comes from the first world exporting its garbage and outsourcing its environmentally destructive industry in an effort to make goods cheaper to compensate for falling purchasing power of their middle and lower classes. Treating first world problems as not-real problems that should be ignored will only worsen those pressures - ending those problems requires giving more people in the first world enough purchasing power that they can shop for more environmentally-friendly and ethically-sourced goods.

Also, just curious, does the fact that I've migrated make me too wealthy or privileged to have anything to complain about? That would be a new angle.

Why not stay and try to make that place better? 

Boost_Crazy said:

How do you get to a conclusion if you don't even know where you are starting from? 

It's easy.  You start at the conclusion, and then you're already there.

Duke said:

Boost_Crazy said:

How do you get to a conclusion if you don't even know where you are starting from? 

It's easy.  You start at the conclusion, and then you're already there.

And what, make him read?

z31maniac said:

GameboyRMH said:

A country that isn't interested in fixing poverty inside its borders will have even less interest and means to fix poverty outside of them. A lot of that pollution and poverty comes from the first world exporting its garbage and outsourcing its environmentally destructive industry in an effort to make goods cheaper to compensate for falling purchasing power of their middle and lower classes. Treating first world problems as not-real problems that should be ignored will only worsen those pressures - ending those problems requires giving more people in the first world enough purchasing power that they can shop for more environmentally-friendly and ethically-sourced goods.

Also, just curious, does the fact that I've migrated make me too wealthy or privileged to have anything to complain about? That would be a new angle.

Why not stay and try to make that place better?

How, by making a run at leadership? The place has a 2-party lock-in situation like the US (and many others) but even worse, because the big-2 parties are almost on top of each other ideologically. A friend's wife made a very respectable effort and gathered about the same as the crumbs of votes that the other 3rd parties picked up. I wanted to vote for her but knew it would be as good as a vote for the big-2 party I didn't want in power. Only ranked-choice voting could fix that issue, which is always the last thing any of the big-2 parties would want in such a situation. I have many more fun stories on that topic but that topic is politics and I don't want to get any closer to it. I'll just say there were some other political developments that I found both discouraging and frightening.

It's an interesting contrast to the ubiquitous "if there are no opportunities where you are then simply move far away" advice at least.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

ranked choice voting isnt as clean solution you think it is. Its just another compromise with plenty of its own problems. You worry about the standard uniparty establishment winning everything, that only gets worse with rank choice voting. You get no actual reformers, the compromise vote will always win.

GameboyRMH said:

I wanted to vote for her but knew it would be as good as a vote for the big-2 party I didn't want in power.

And there it is.

"I want change but change never works so I refuse to try anything to make change."

[edit] See also:  "I hate the status quo but I won't vote third party because third parties never win because nobody votes third party because third parties never win."

Opti said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

ranked choice voting isnt as clean solution you think it is. Its just another compromise with plenty of its own problems. You worry about the standard uniparty establishment winning everything, that only gets worse with rank choice voting. You get no actual reformers, the compromise vote will always win.

That's how democracy works.

Duke said:

GameboyRMH said:

I wanted to vote for her but knew it would be as good as a vote for the big-2 party I didn't want in power.

And there it is.

"I want change but change never works so I refuse to try anything to make change."

[edit] See also:  "I hate the status quo but I won't vote third party because third parties never win because nobody votes third party because third parties never win."

 

Except Lincoln was a 3rd party. Here in Minnesota we voted in a 3rd party wrestler for Governor.  
   The reason the third party tends not to win is they tend to have Weaker candidates. A good candidate will make the difference and get elected.  
    The country is ready for it.  

In reply to frenchyd :

I believe the last few election cycles have conclusively proven the country is NOT ready to vote third party.

Duke said:

"I want change but change never works so I refuse to try anything to make change."

I absolutely don't believe that change never works or is impossible, or refuse to try anything to make change. I declined to try a tactic that is practically guaranteed to backfire.

Duke said:

See also:  "I hate the status quo but I won't vote third party because third parties never win because nobody votes third party because third parties never win."

Sure, it sounds stupid, but that's exactly how it is and you can't just mock extremely stupid problems out of existence, as much as I wish we could.

Opti said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

ranked choice voting isnt as clean solution you think it is. Its just another compromise with plenty of its own problems. You worry about the standard uniparty establishment winning everything, that only gets worse with rank choice voting. You get no actual reformers, the compromise vote will always win.

Ranked choice has its own problems but they're far fewer than the first-past-the-post system. I don't see how it would make the compromise problem worse, all real-world results so far suggest the opposite.

Ranked choice seems like a double edged sword.  If most people want a compromise solution, thats what you'll get.  But if most people want to burn it down, youll get that.  Either way, it does represent what the people want more than the current US system.

 Yeah, America isn't ready for any 3rd party, least of all when they're screaming furious at their own presidential candidate for being pro-driver's licenses like they did. Gary deserved better.

Anyway... I'm gonna try to keep Boost from building a Patio.

Boost_Crazy said:

I wasn't offended by you selecting the Huffington Post as "evidence," I was disappointed.

Disappointed in what? You keep demanding I know some personal opinion of yours lmao

I never said I didn't read your links. I said I didn't vet them. I don't know to what degree they can be trusted.

If you opened any of them, you'd see they're written by an Ivy League professor, multiple financial institutions, the Fed, and multiple news agencies.

I'm not defending the banks. But all of your linked research starts at the banks and skips the part where people willingly signed on the dotted line. Not only do you appear to skip over that very important part, you stated that they were preyed upon. How do you get to a conclusion if you don't even know where you are starting from? 

You started commenting because another person claimed they were signing people for loans they couldn't afford, because said poor would call them "racist". That person hasn't posted since, for some reason you stepped up to defend them, I suppose.

The phrase "all of your linked research starts at the banks and skips the part where people willingly signed on the dotted line" is pretty berkeleying funny tbh, it's like asking why a study of a car crash starts with the time the driver spent at the bar. While it's debatable that the recession was caused by the removal of Glass-Steagall in 1995 (linked from Wiki since the note section is decent), fact is that banks began wafting the idea of the American dream of home ownership to anyone regardless of their ability to pay and treated those subprime mortgages as a security. If you're willing to learn, I know of a good video detailing the burst.

Again, since you never answered the question- who were the victims? 

Why are you so bound and determined for an enemy? Because frankly, everyone was a victim of it since it affected literally everyone on some scale. 

In reply to Duke :

It depends on what you are looking for in a President.   ( any politician)   
    Understand that 1/2 of the country leans one way and the other half leans the other way.    
A great President  would have to be a master at compromise to achieve anything.  
   Pretend Tom Hanks ( the actor) wanted it.  I can't guess his personal leanings  but what common ground  could he achieve?   
       I suppose fix our infrastructure? 
  To do that he'd have to give  one side upgraded schools and the other side upgraded roads?  
     Then have to figure out places where there is waste. Programs with good intentions but are costing more than what they actually are achieving.  

I'm only guessing here, not trying to  put a bias here  so I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.  
      Sugar subsidies?   Really only effects 8 families.  However  Americans pay almost 2x global prices of sugar.  
       Then maybe we can find some imported goods that foreign  Nations subsidize  their export industry.  Cell Phones ( don't know much if anything, just a wild guess). Raise import duty on That item?   
I'm sure there are other programs that can be cut.  Something that costs a lot and has poor results.  Maybe can be done away with and start fresh with a new approach?  

In reply to frenchyd :

Pretty much every government program is inefficient and overly expensive. The government (no matter whos in charge) is pretty bad about recognizing waste and correcting it. The more common approach is to just tax and spend more, ignore the waste, and generate more revenue or deficit spend for whatever the new hot topic is.

In reply to Opti :

Once a gov't program is created it is nearly impossible to kill. If it is successful, "Hey this works, let's throw more money at it and make it bigger." If it is a failure, "Well, obviously it was under funded. Let's throw more money at it and make it work."

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Pretty much every government program is inefficient and overly expensive. The government (no matter whos in charge) is pretty bad about recognizing waste and correcting it. The more common approach is to just tax and spend more, ignore the waste, and generate more revenue or deficit spend for whatever the new hot topic is.

I think that is just a stereotype. Have you ever worked for a government agency? I have. I have also worked for two of the largest Fortune 500 companies. There are governments and government departments that are actually well run. There are departments in private corporations that are poorly run. It has more to do with the individuals running the organization. 

How many Silicon Valley Companies just piss away venture capital money chasing technology that isn't possible, hire programmers that play games all day and eventually go broke without making a profit? That is waste too.

Bad management is bad management. Stereotypes are stereotypes.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Pretty much every government program is inefficient and overly expensive. The government (no matter whos in charge) is pretty bad about recognizing waste and correcting it. The more common approach is to just tax and spend more, ignore the waste, and generate more revenue or deficit spend for whatever the new hot topic is.

I just seconding snowdoggie but that's a pretty bad stereotype. You need organizational inertia, and because we have checks and balances that means you likely need other branches to okay changes and improvements.

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Pretty much every government program is inefficient and overly expensive. The government (no matter whos in charge) is pretty bad about recognizing waste and correcting it. The more common approach is to just tax and spend more, ignore the waste, and generate more revenue or deficit spend for whatever the new hot topic is.

I have a political position in support of government social programs, but I do 100000% agree with the above.  I want to see it corrected.  But I also understand the "the govt is just going to make some bloated bureaucratic mess of this and berkeley it up anyway" view.

FIXING waste seems like an effort that would be praised all around and pretty much everyone would support, but there is zero focus on that.

That said, all of the above applies to anyone the government contracts to as well, so its not as easy as outsourcing.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

Opti said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Pretty much every government program is inefficient and overly expensive. The government (no matter whos in charge) is pretty bad about recognizing waste and correcting it. The more common approach is to just tax and spend more, ignore the waste, and generate more revenue or deficit spend for whatever the new hot topic is.

I think that is just a stereotype. Have you ever worked for a government agency? I have. I have also worked for two of the largest Fortune 500 companies. There are governments and government departments that are actually well run. There are departments in private corporations that are poorly run. It has more to do with the individuals running the organization. 

How many Silicon Valley Companies just piss away venture capital money chasing technology that isn't possible, hire programmers that play games all day and eventually go broke without making a profit? That is waste too.

Bad management is bad management. Stereotypes are stereotypes.

I've worked for private companies that deal with the Department of Defense. The stereotype definitely fits there, the amount of ridiculous stuff dealing with the DOD has made me swear off working for a defense contractor again. 

z31maniac said:

I've worked for private companies that deal with the Department of Defense. The stereotype definitely fits there, the amount of ridiculous stuff dealing with the DOD has made me swear off working for a defense contractor again. 

Yep.  I left one in 2010 and kinda swore that off.  But after a series of acquisitions and mergers, I now work for a very big one again.  Thankfully I am fairly distant from anything DOD related, but I can feel that burden spilling over to my work.

In reply to ProDarwin :

I was amazed when I learned how much the DoD is paying microsoft to keep supporting windows XP just for them. 

I worked for a DOD contractor, and along with 4 other engineers, none of our jobs were needed.  Period.  But the acquisitions contract was written that way, so we reported to work and did almost nothing all day everyday.  Sometimes I would go to meetings just because.  They would be meetings of 10-60 people (contractors, and direct military), with some other company/division/whatever presenting some really boring thing nobody cared about.  Everyone was falling asleep.  I'd do math in my head to play the "how much is does this meeting cost" game.  The waste was ridiculous, all around.  Our employer didn't care, as long as the customer was happy, because they got paid for us.  The customer was happy, because they never saw the bill directly, and we weren't needed.

When I inquired about finding actual work to do, or even leaving for another job, everyone looked at me and said "Are you crazy?  You are on the gravy train now." 

So berkeley it, I left after 3 months.  My brain would have turned to mush.

That was one such small acquisitions contract.  There are probably endless contracts like that throughout the DOD.