Axel Grease wrote:

One of the best things about the USA is our Freedom to differ in our
opinions about the actions of elected officials... and those who are not
elected... and put voice to those differences publicly.

'Tis - and note that I've tried my best to offer info in a
non-incendiary fashion. I can't recall a time when it seemed more
important to keep our heads clear.

I have actively campaigned in some, but not all, elections. My copy of the
US Constitution remains close at hand at all times; a ready reference never
more than a few feet away.

Good on you. I keep a copy at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Constitution.html
in case anyone needs to refer to it and there isn't a paper copy handy.
There's also http://www.iedu.com/mrd/Declaration.html that I re-read
every now and then...

Thank you for the itemized lists. It will be handy, come election day... if
the nation remains solvent that long.

We'll remain solvent as long as Treasury has printing preses. :-) I hope
the lists help (to borrow words from Jefferson) to inform your discretion.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

We'll remain solvent as long as Treasury has printing preses.


When was the last time you saw a bill printed from the U.S. Treasury?
All of mine say they're Federal Reserve Notes. They're issued by the
Federal Reserve Bank, which I thought is a private corporation (BTW, who
owns its stock?), not a part of the Treasury Department.

Morris Dovey wrote:

We'll remain solvent as long as Treasury has printing preses. :-) I hope
the lists help (to borrow words from Jefferson) to inform your discretion.


Hopefully we won't need a wheelbarrow instead of a wallet to carry
enough of it to buy anything...

Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

Morris Dovey wrote:

We'll remain solvent as long as Treasury has printing preses. :-) I
hope the lists help (to borrow words from Jefferson) to inform your
discretion.


Hopefully we won't need a wheelbarrow instead of a wallet to carry
enough of it to buy anything...

The consolation at the moment is that the number of US$ you can get for a
€ has risen since the dollar's low point a few months ago. That means
that our economy is better than it was with respect to the European
economy. It also means the Europeans can't buy as much American goods as
they could. But, overall, the US$ has been devalued by the current
series of events, and that was not a result of the loan crisis, but of
deficit spending by the current administration. Be ready for more
inflation in the years ahead, unless spending is reigned in. Which is
better for you and me, inflation or spending restrictions, I don't know

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:

We'll remain solvent as long as Treasury has printing preses.


When was the last time you saw a bill printed from the U.S. Treasury?
All of mine say they're Federal Reserve Notes. They're issued by the
Federal Reserve Bank, which I thought is a private corporation (BTW, who
owns its stock?), not a part of the Treasury Department.

Both the United States Mint (officially singular) and the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing are elements of the Department of the Treasury.

The Federal Reserve System is a mechanism intended to assist in
maintaining a healthy economy by (as far as I can tell) influencing the
volume and velocity of monetary /flow/.

As I write this, I'm downloading a 29 MB PDF file from:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

so I can learn a bit more...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:

The Federal Reserve System is a mechanism intended to assist in
maintaining a healthy economy by (as far as I can tell) influencing the
volume and velocity of monetary /flow/.

As I write this, I'm downloading a 29 MB PDF file from:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pf.htm

so I can learn a bit more...

I just finished skimming their 146-page booklet and wasn't too far off.
I think it's worth the time to read thoroughly just for an understanding
of how the FR affects our lives and how it functions in the context of a
global economy.

The booklet covers Federal Reserve notes... Care to take a wild guess as
to how they're secured? (Does "bank paper" have a familiar sound?)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote in news:48e8e630$0$48221$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

The booklet covers Federal Reserve notes... Care to take a wild guess as
to how they're secured? (Does "bank paper" have a familiar sound?)


Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes or
gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is much
easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession. All those
properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite valuable 2 years ago.
Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely they'll be worth much more
again in a few years.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote

Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes or
gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is much
easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession. All those
properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite valuable 2 years ago.
Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely they'll be worth much more
again in a few years.

.... and with regard to the bailout, subprime mess, and attendant stock
market hysteria/plunge, let me repeat, once again, what I said/posted the
other day:

The absolute proof of something's true worth is how quickly it loses its
value.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Morris Dovey" wrote

I haven't been able to figure out any other way. BTW, I learned last night
that 92% of Iowa's eligible voters are registered - I think people are
beginning to notice that the autopilot isn't working. :-)

Reportedly, there has been NO increase in registered voters in
Houston/Harris County since the last election in 2004.

I find that very strange in an area where the economy and housing market is
apparently still strong?


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/18/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in
:



"Han" wrote

Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes
or gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is
much easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession.
All those properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite
valuable 2 years ago. Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely
they'll be worth much more again in a few years.

... and with regard to the bailout, subprime mess, and attendant stock
market hysteria/plunge, let me repeat, once again, what I said/posted
the other day:

The absolute proof of something's true worth is how quickly it loses
its value.

The meteoric rise in home prices was just as artificial as the current
decline in those markets where there (apparently) was most manipulation.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Lee Michaels" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote

The rise in home prices was just as artificial as the current
decline in those markets where there (apparently) was most
manipulation.


If in fact the meteoric rise in real estate prices were "artificial",
then the decline in "real".

Or in economicspeak, a "correction".

In both cases there was overreaction, IMNSHO.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in news:48e8e630$0$48221$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

The booklet covers Federal Reserve notes... Care to take a wild guess as
to how they're secured? (Does "bank paper" have a familiar sound?)


Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes or
gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Of course, and it goes without saying that's tempered by supply and
demand considerations.

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is much
easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession. All those
properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite valuable 2 years ago.
Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely they'll be worth much more
again in a few years.

The willing buyer is easy to find - it's finding the willing buyer who
has the wherewithal with which to purchase that's likely to be more
difficult...

I happened on these two radio programs - I've listened to almost all of
the first and expect the second to offer at least as much insight. I'm
not familiar with "This American Life", but they've teamed up with NPR
to produce these - and they go a long way toward explaining the mess
we've managed to produce.

One of the things that makes 'em particularly interesting is that they
consist of interviews with people who were participants at all levels in
the mortgage-generation financial process.

http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/jo...shouse/355.mp3
http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/jo...shouse/365.mp3

I'm going to guess that if we actually manage to learn from our
mistakes, a lot of these houses will never be worth their original
selling prices after adjustment for inflation and with the interest
rates that'll be required to finance their purchase...


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Han wrote:
"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Han" wrote

Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes
or gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is
much easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession.
All those properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite
valuable 2 years ago. Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely
they'll be worth much more again in a few years.
... and with regard to the bailout, subprime mess, and attendant stock
market hysteria/plunge, let me repeat, once again, what I said/posted
the other day:

The absolute proof of something's true worth is how quickly it loses
its value.

The meteoric rise in home prices was just as artificial as the current
decline in those markets where there (apparently) was most manipulation.

With NINA (no income no assets) loans available to boost demand for new
homes to "flip" in a shortage environment, the rise couldn't have been
anything less than meteoric. A lot of builders cashed in by building
high-profit "McMansions" and local banks (who had no skin in the game)
were happy to write mortgages being sought by Wall Street types who
couldn't sell shares of their mortgage-backed funds fast enough to eager
big-money investors around the globe.

Normally, a great deal of that investment money would have gone into
Treasury Bonds, but former Fed Chairman locked that yield down so low
those folks were desperate for some kind of reasonably secure investment
with a reasonable return. Funds secured by real property in the USA
looked like a good way to go.


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote in news:48e9312b$0$89877$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

I'm going to guess that if we actually manage to learn from our
mistakes, a lot of these houses will never be worth their original
selling prices after adjustment for inflation and with the interest
rates that'll be required to finance their purchase...

I would really like to bet that you're wrong, but I'm too scared that you
might be right ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:26:52 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Han wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote in news:48e8e630$0$48221$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

The booklet covers Federal Reserve notes... Care to take a wild guess as
to how they're secured? (Does "bank paper" have a familiar sound?)


Value, whether fine woodworking, solar installations (BG!!), FR notes or
gold, is best defined as "what a willing buyer would pay for it".

Of course, and it goes without saying that's tempered by supply and
demand considerations.

Problem is definition of willing buyer. In a "hot" economy he is much
easier to find than in an economy just entering a recession. All those
properties secured by subprime mortgages were quite valuable 2 years ago.
Now they're worth much, much less. Most likely they'll be worth much more
again in a few years.

The willing buyer is easy to find - it's finding the willing buyer who
has the wherewithal with which to purchase that's likely to be more
difficult...

I happened on these two radio programs - I've listened to almost all of
the first and expect the second to offer at least as much insight. I'm
not familiar with "This American Life", but they've teamed up with NPR
to produce these - and they go a long way toward explaining the mess
we've managed to produce.

One of the things that makes 'em particularly interesting is that they
consist of interviews with people who were participants at all levels in
the mortgage-generation financial process.

A man who worked for me left the company to pursue other interests.
Not wanting to lose him, I questioned him about the decision and asked
him what he intended to do. He responded that he was going to be a
mortgage loan originator. Seemed odd to me, I guess I didn't fully
understand what was going on, but he was convinced he could "make a
lot of money" doing that.

He did, I guess, enough that he purchased a Pizza franchise and that's
what he is doing now.

Hard to find fault with his decision, he didn't create the environment
or make up the rules. He just capitalized on the situation. In fact
it's hard to lay blame on any person or entity that was capitalizing
on the situation. In manufacturing problem solving, it has always
been a search for the root cause. The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.


http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/jo...shouse/355.mp3
http://audio.thisamericanlife.org/jo...shouse/365.mp3

I'm going to guess that if we actually manage to learn from our
mistakes, a lot of these houses will never be worth their original
selling prices after adjustment for inflation and with the interest
rates that'll be required to finance their purchase...

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:

The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.

Actually, I think it would be one individual who is usually though of as
being other than a politician - the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, Alan Greenspan, who redirected some 70 trillion dollars in world
wide investment funds away from Treasury Bonds.

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

Absolutely correct! And when 'something is not quite right', we'd better
give it immediate, close scrutiny. Failing to do /that/ was the mistake
we all need to learn to not make again.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.

Actually, I think it would be one individual who is usually though of as
being other than a politician - the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, Alan Greenspan, who redirected some 70 trillion dollars in world
wide investment funds away from Treasury Bonds.

If true, he prevented $70 trillion from being added to the national debt!

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land. It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.

--
Keith

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.

Actually, I think it would be one individual who is usually though of
as being other than a politician - the then Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who redirected some 70 trillion dollars
in world wide investment funds away from Treasury Bonds.

If true, he prevented $70 trillion from being added to the national debt!

Or at least by the amount that would have been invested in T-Bonds (It
seems unlikely that the entire global investment pool would be invested
here.)

In addition to preventing a great deal of that investment here, he also
gets credit for /all/ of the consequences of that redirection - which
will likely have significant negative impact on our lives, our
children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives.

It was more than just a bit startling to me to realize how much of the
world uses the US Treasury as the safest bank available to them. The
Treasury Department Brochure (mentioned upstream) mentions that the US
Treasury is paid by other countries' central banks for performing some
of its banking functions.

It's going to be interesting to see how much this "savings" is going to
cost US taxpayers - as well as the ordinary folks in other countries.
Today Iceland's currency went into the tank - I wonder whose tomorrow.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Morris Dovey wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:

The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.

Actually, I think it would be one individual who is usually though of
as being other than a politician - the then Chairman of the Federal
Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who redirected some 70 trillion
dollars in world wide investment funds away from Treasury Bonds.

If true, he prevented $70 trillion from being added to the national debt!

Or at least by the amount that would have been invested in T-Bonds (It
seems unlikely that the entire global investment pool would be invested
here.)

In addition to preventing a great deal of that investment here, he also
gets credit for /all/ of the consequences of that redirection - which
will likely have significant negative impact on our lives, our
children's lives, and our grandchildren's lives.

It was more than just a bit startling to me to realize how much of the
world uses the US Treasury as the safest bank available to them. The
Treasury Department Brochure (mentioned upstream) mentions that the US
Treasury is paid by other countries' central banks for performing some
of its banking functions.

It's going to be interesting to see how much this "savings" is going to
cost US taxpayers - as well as the ordinary folks in other countries.
Today Iceland's currency went into the tank - I wonder whose tomorrow.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls...


Every bond/note/security the US issues is paid for in cash, which is
then spent by the government - hence every dollar issued in these
bonds/notes/securities is a dollar added to the national debt. When
these folks come back to the treasury with their bond/note/security in
hand and want their cash back plus interest, the US government has to
get the cash from their only source of revenue - taxpayers!

How in the world could inviting foreigners to increase our national debt
be good for the US or it's [future] taxpayers? It's the same problem we
have with our trust funds - every dollar put into them adds a dollar
plus interest for future taxpayers to cough up - currently approaching
$5 trillion and climbing fast.

It's as though we are going beserk with a credit card that has our
children's/grandchildren's names on them.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:58:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

currently approaching
$5 trillion and climbing fast.

Over $10 trillion according to
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

Tom Veatch wrote:
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:58:51 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

currently approaching
$5 trillion and climbing fast.

Over $10 trillion according to
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

I was referring to that portion of the debt which is known as "intra
governmental debt" or "non-negotiable debt" which is the non public part
which is primarily a result of the government spending the excess
contributions of the 150 or so "trust funds" and placing IOUs in the
funds. The other $5+ trillion of the debt is known as "public debt"
which consists of T-bills, savings bonds, and other stuff that the feds
sell on the open markets to finance our current expenditures. This is
the part that we owe to China and other public purchasers including
ourselves.

The intra governmental debt is a result of spending the cash from the
trust funds and showing it as income but not showing the IOUs it bought
as an expenditure in the current budget year. This is how we claimed to
have have budget surpluses in the late '90s even though the debt has
increased every year since 1960.

There is no "good" or "bad" debt, it is all debt when it comes to paying up.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:29:21 -0500, Morris Dovey
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

The root cause in this instance is
those politicians who set the system up and created the environment.

Actually, I think it would be one individual who is usually though of as
being other than a politician - the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board, Alan Greenspan, who redirected some 70 trillion dollars in world
wide investment funds away from Treasury Bonds.

And that's why financial institutions across the country relaxed their
lending standards to include those that had always been considered a
very high risk to default? I guess I'm consfused as to the cause and
effect.

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

Absolutely correct! And when 'something is not quite right', we'd better
give it immediate, close scrutiny. Failing to do /that/ was the mistake
we all need to learn to not make again.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.






It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.

On Oct 7, 9:25*am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:


They only thing they're not making any more of is the land. *

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future. *


I have posted this here before, but land vs population is another one
of those flags that libtards like running with.
Many years ago, I took from several encyclopaedic resources, the
number of square miles of land in our province of Ontario, Canada,
deducted a certain percentage of area due to waterways, lakes, etc,
and divided into that the number of people on the planet. (6 billion
at that time).
The conclusion was interesting. The result is totally non-conclusive,
as all kinds of arguments open up, like farmland for food, factories,
roads and all that obvious stuff. I know, I know, but the I only
looked at how much land each person on earth would have if they all
moved to my province.
IIRC, every man, woman, child had a parcel of land 50' x 120'.
Now look at a globe, find Ontario, and try to get your head around how
tiny a spec Ontario is relative to the rest of the planet. And our
farts are ruining the atmosphere?

At the Science centre in Toronto, the had (have?) on display an
aluminum ball. Highly polished. About 10" in diameter. Really smooth.
There was a plaque referring to that ball which explained how the
imperfections of that ball (remember, highly polished) when scaled to
Earth's size would have mountains waaaay bigger than Himalayans and
depths way deeper than the Mariana Trench.... and that all the water
on the planet wouldn't fill 1/2 a thimble.

Look at the time... lunch is over..look out G-Code here I come...

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:19:19 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 7, 9:25*am, Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:


They only thing they're not making any more of is the land. *

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future. *


I have posted this here before, but land vs population is another one
of those flags that libtards like running with.
Many years ago, I took from several encyclopaedic resources, the
number of square miles of land in our province of Ontario, Canada,
deducted a certain percentage of area due to waterways, lakes, etc,
and divided into that the number of people on the planet. (6 billion
at that time).
The conclusion was interesting. The result is totally non-conclusive,
as all kinds of arguments open up, like farmland for food, factories,
roads and all that obvious stuff. I know, I know, but the I only
looked at how much land each person on earth would have if they all
moved to my province.

Hey great, were on our way..

IIRC, every man, woman, child had a parcel of land 50' x 120'.
Now look at a globe, find Ontario, and try to get your head around how
tiny a spec Ontario is relative to the rest of the planet. And our
farts are ruining the atmosphere?

At the Science centre in Toronto, the had (have?) on display an
aluminum ball. Highly polished. About 10" in diameter. Really smooth.
There was a plaque referring to that ball which explained how the
imperfections of that ball (remember, highly polished) when scaled to
Earth's size would have mountains waaaay bigger than Himalayans and
depths way deeper than the Mariana Trench.... and that all the water
on the planet wouldn't fill 1/2 a thimble.



Look at the time... lunch is over..look out G-Code here I come...

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

....but not where the people are (and want to be).




It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.



--
Keith

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?




It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.

Just got the notice today.

So, what are the alternatives to get the newsgroups?

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.





--
Keith

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:39:15 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


So are you suggesting that if I took a normal curve of the population
of the country and isolated the middle quatrile, that portion at the
top of the curve that represented the highest population based on
geographic location, those three areas would represent that quatrile
as compared to say, small town America?

I guess I'm missing your point.

I've been to each of those areas, two of them multiple times, have no
desire to live in any of them. I had under my control a
manufacturing/sales facility in one of them (Biesemeyer in Mesa) and
the guys we sent out to run the facility could not wait to leave and
have done so. That doesn't mean if I did live there I wouldn't like
the experience, I've lived in twenty or so different places and liked
them all. My choice would be to live in an area that has a high
quality of life, but that doesn't cost me so much for the roof over my
head that I can't enjoy the quality of life.

A point could be made, and maybe that is the point you are trying to
make, is that it is a free country and if you choose for whatever
reason to live in an area that has had real estate values driven up
significantly, then great. It doesn't mean that there are not
infinite other choices that are reasonable and where the quality of
life is considered better by many. It also doesn't mean that the gov
should provide you with a class of mortgage loans that is more or less
social experimentation so satisfy your choice.

Frank

It
doesn't take long for 1) land prices to catch up to the selling
prices, or 2) the selling prices fall to the land prices. Long
term, the rest of the components of a house are in abundant supply -
everywhere.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:39:15 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


So are you suggesting that if I took a normal curve of the population
of the country and isolated the middle quatrile, that portion at the
top of the curve that represented the highest population based on
geographic location, those three areas would represent that quatrile
as compared to say, small town America?

I guess I'm missing your point.

I can't decode the above paragraph.

Let me make it simple. Most people live in (or want to live in)
high-density areas of the country where land is scarce, therefor
expensive. Simple enough.

I've been to each of those areas, two of them multiple times, have no
desire to live in any of them.

You and I are not "most people". The weather in SoCal is nice
though. The fact is that a high percentage of the population lives
in a narrow band near the coasts (including the Great Lakes).

I had under my control a
manufacturing/sales facility in one of them (Biesemeyer in Mesa) and
the guys we sent out to run the facility could not wait to leave and
have done so. That doesn't mean if I did live there I wouldn't like
the experience, I've lived in twenty or so different places and liked
them all. My choice would be to live in an area that has a high
quality of life, but that doesn't cost me so much for the roof over my
head that I can't enjoy the quality of life.

Where you and I live is irrelevant to this conversation.

A point could be made, and maybe that is the point you are trying to
make, is that it is a free country and if you choose for whatever
reason to live in an area that has had real estate values driven up
significantly, then great. It doesn't mean that there are not
infinite other choices that are reasonable and where the quality of
life is considered better by many.

No, I'm not making that point at all; rather you have it backwards.
The point I'm making is that *MOST* people choose to live in in the
same areas so the land prices there are high. There is no more land
and no more is being made. That isn't true of construction
materials and to a lesser degree labor.

It also doesn't mean that the gov
should provide you with a class of mortgage loans that is more or less
social experimentation so satisfy your choice.

I quite agree and I never said it should. I only pointed out that
prices reflect demand on *LAND* more than anything else. Whether
the constraint is artificial (i.e. political) or not, land drives
long-term home prices.

--
Keith

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:35:56 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:39:15 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


So are you suggesting that if I took a normal curve of the population
of the country and isolated the middle quatrile, that portion at the
top of the curve that represented the highest population based on
geographic location, those three areas would represent that quatrile
as compared to say, small town America?

I guess I'm missing your point.

I can't decode the above paragraph.

Be glad to explain if you have a specific question. You know what a
distribution curve is?

You used "most" at least three times to describe that portion of the
population that you seem to believe want to live in the types of areas
you described earlier. Most means the majority. I disagree.

My five state region about 25% live in major cities or coastal
regions, the balance in small towns and rural. That's more than "you
or I", but still might not be statistically relevant, so I won't
belabor the point.

However, if your are saying that the reason for 300% increase, in the
price of a house over a short period of time (my original statement)
is because land is scarce in those regions that are in demand, we
should agree to disagree. If you have some other point, I guess I
don't see it.

Frank

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:35:56 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:39:15 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:55:55 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:02:40 -0500, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip

I'll say it again, when a property is selling at three times its
replacement construction cost even considering the acquisition and
development of the land the dwelling sits on and there is no long term
projected shortage, you know something is not quite right.

They only thing they're not making any more of is the land.

True, but except for certain classes of land there is an abundent
supply for the foreseeable future.

...but not where the people are (and want to be).

And where (please answer with statistical relevance) might that be?

SoCal. Westchester Co. NY. Phoenix AZ. Look at the census maps.
If that's too boring, look at land prices.


So are you suggesting that if I took a normal curve of the population
of the country and isolated the middle quatrile, that portion at the
top of the curve that represented the highest population based on
geographic location, those three areas would represent that quatrile
as compared to say, small town America?

I guess I'm missing your point.

I can't decode the above paragraph.

Be glad to explain if you have a specific question. You know what a
distribution curve is?

You can look up whatever numbers float your boat. Census records
are pretty easy to search through.

You used "most" at least three times to describe that portion of the
population that you seem to believe want to live in the types of areas
you described earlier. Most means the majority. I disagree.

It's a fact.

My five state region about 25% live in major cities or coastal
regions, the balance in small towns and rural. That's more than "you
or I", but still might not be statistically relevant, so I won't
belabor the point.

However, if your are saying that the reason for 300% increase, in the
price of a house over a short period of time (my original statement)
is because land is scarce in those regions that are in demand, we
should agree to disagree. If you have some other point, I guess I
don't see it.

No, I actually said nothing of the kind. I stated "long term" many
times. In the "short term" supply can be artificially constrained
by things like contractor supply. There is a reason that LI (the
original subject) housing costs more than rural LA and it's not
because "building costs" are that much higher.

--
Keith

Frank Boettcher wrote:

: My five state region about 25% live in major cities or coastal
: regions, the balance in small towns and rural. That's more than "you
: or I", but still might not be statistically relevant, so I won't
: belabor the point.


It's an aberration. As of the 2000 census, about 80% of the US population
lived in urban areas, 20% in rural ones. And I'm pretty sure the trend is upwards,
so the urbanites are likely more than 80% now.

-- Andy Barss