bostonbubble.com Forum Index bostonbubble.com
Boston Bubble - Boston Real Estate Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

SPONSORED LINKS

Advertise on Boston Bubble
Buyer brokers and motivated
sellers, reach potential buyers.
www.bostonbubble.com

YOUR AD HERE

 
Go to: Boston real estate bubble fact list with references
More Boston Bubble News...
DISCLAIMER: The information provided on this website and in the associated forums comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, expressed or implied. You assume all risk for your own use of the information provided as the accuracy of the information is in no way guaranteed. As always, cross check information that you would deem useful against multiple, reliable, independent resources. The opinions expressed belong to the individual authors and not necessarily to other parties.

Boston Bubble Brief: The Real Story for MA - Apr 2009
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:04 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
This is not semantics - Obama does want to control the healthcare. He wants to replace all health insurances with a government ran plan. Its really simple. If you think it through, you'll see that the only result of his policies would be the complete dominance of government ran health insurance, meaning that the government will be running healthcare.


Actually he wants a government run plan to *compete* with private ones.
But in any case I dont see what is so bad about national health insurance.
You have to explain why places like France, Germany and Canada all spend
a smaller portion of GDP on healthcare while their citizens have a longer
life expectancy.

Apparently your vaunted free market delivers less health care at a higher
cost than the "socialist" government programs.

GenXer wrote:

The problem with any regulation is that it causes more problems than it solves.


Ah, I didn't realize you were an anarchist too.

Hmmm, a capitalist anarchist. Rather oxymoronic dont you think ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lawrence



Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:27 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
The one world which socialists are trying to build does not work. It has been shown that it does not work.


Nonsense. There has never been a "pure socialist" world, so how can we say it has been shown not to work?

GenXer wrote:
'Pure' capitalism is good, but nothing is ever pure.


Oh wait....

Smile


My point is that arguing that "capitalism" is the answer is as useless/pointless as arguing that "socialism" or "communism" is the answer. *none* of these things can work because there is no way to get "pure capitalism", "pure socialism", etc. We are human beings and we aren't "pure" anything.

All of these things have flaws because they only capture a part of who we are ... we are all capitalistic, we are all socialistic. There's no way to have one without the other.


You might not like Obama, or you might not like Bush, but let's discuss specific policies and not just throw around blanket statements that really don't make sense.

I no fan of modern unions, but I do acknowledge that they *did* serve a purpose at one time (and potentially still do today). It's more the fact that the big ones have become as powerful as they have and that in their current incarnation/role they encourage laziness and hamper efficiency and innovation. But I'm not gonna argue that we should go back to the pre-union days of the 19th century with 16 hour work days and miserable working conditions.


-L
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
balor123



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 1204

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:05 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:

USPS is not really a government program - it is business. We don't know how much it costs to run it! That's the point. It may not be very competitive given the expenses and inefficiencies. I don't know the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that a private enterprise would be much better than USPS. The problem is that the government does not trust this task to a private enterprise.


I'm just saying that as far as government programs go, it is one of the best and it has benefiting this country immensely since it was created.

GenXer wrote:

He wants to replace all health insurances with a government ran plan. Its really simple. If you think it through, you'll see that the only result of his policies would be the complete dominance of government ran health insurance, meaning that the government will be running healthcare.


There's a lot more to healthcare than who pays for it. In any case, the government already has significant influence there through Medicare. I would rather see the whole system privatized but that would be too costly to politicians careers even when it's clear that this country is doomed without significant reform. Have you seen the Wikipedia page on the AMA?

GenXer wrote:

The problem with any regulation is that it causes more problems than it solves.


I'm no Democrat but that is too strong of a statement don't you think? Free markets only work as well as its participants allow and we have plenty of not so smart people in America. Free markets are easily manipulated towards the good of a few over many (Standard Oil for example). Regulation likely won't fix booms and busts but can impact the magnitude of them. They are hard to get right and they're never perfect but don't confuse imperfect with harmful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GenXer



Joined: 20 Feb 2009
Posts: 703

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:27 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Look at regulation this way. Once imposed, it makes the cost of business higher for the companies. Sometimes, the cost could be extreme (cap'n'trade anybody? With this one, Obama singlehandedly will take down the US economy). The end result is that we the consumers pay for this because this cost is always carried over to the cost of products and services. This is basic economics. And almost always, regulations are trying to prevent last year's problems tomorrow, which is never the case, as there are new problems to deal with in the future. So there are new regulations, and the cost keeps going up until businessess can not afford it anymore, and the comsumers bear the burden of higher prices. There are plenty of examples here. Almost always, regulations bear political stamp, and end up being far from 'commonsense', so the argument is that most of the times, regulations cause more problems than they solve.

The best example of this is Europe. They are going down, and fast. Imported hordes of immigrants who are now on welfare with huge families. Over-regulated everything, and now the cost of everything is through the roof. If there is one example of socialim that we do not want to follow is Europe - and we are fast moving that way, unfortunately. There is a reason why socialism fails. Whenever the government gets into any business, it usually has to increase taxes to pay for it. Healthcare is a prime example. I don't think anybody in the US would want the European healthcare model. Whenever pay is mandated and the government can pick and choose what you get for healthcare, the results are not far behind - huge wait times for basic services, refusal of services by the beaurocrats, poor quality and huge costs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BostonITer
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:48 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer, where I completely agree with you is in the way the govt refuses to allow the boom/bust cycles to work themselves out.

The way I see it, propping up housing is in effect, destroying the net future of America for another quarter century. This is where the govt is in effect, useless. It's better to let a quarter of the foreclosed population live in tents, in their respective town centers (much like it is in Ontario, California), but then the govt can provide extra policing to keep the gangs out. The net effect is that these folks get to live *for free*, work an ordinary job but w/o housing costs, re-build their balance sheet (using Mailboxes etc for the payroll), and start over in an apartment but with no debt and only savings. The above will cost very little and will form an economic bottom for housing.

But instead, the govt implicitly knows that people & businesses need asset bubbles and will continue to search for new ones. So like with the stock market, the govt is trying to prop up housing while a new investment mania takes hold whether it be in 'green' or in some other venture. All and all, this is a problem.
Back to top
nickbp



Joined: 26 Feb 2009
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:31 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
Look at regulation this way. Once imposed, it makes the cost of business higher for the companies. Sometimes, the cost could be extreme (cap'n'trade anybody? With this one, Obama singlehandedly will take down the US economy). The end result is that we the consumers pay for this because this cost is always carried over to the cost of products and services. This is basic economics.


You're ignoring the inherent costs of a fully unregulated market. What's the benefit of saving $5 on a toaster if it burns down your house, or food which poisons you? Regulation is not inherently bad. When done correctly, it's good for the consumer who depends on safe products, and it's good for the producer who doesn't want to sell unsafe products or else be priced out of the market. The tricky part is reaching a happy medium where those regulations are enough to keep everyone honest but not so much that they're an unnecessary burden.

Cap and trade is similar -- it forces the market to include the costs of pollution when selling goods which cause that pollution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:32 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
I don't think anybody in the US would want the European healthcare model.


Yes, that would mean longer life expectancies at less cost.
How horrible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nickbp



Joined: 26 Feb 2009
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:36 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

GenXer wrote:
I don't think anybody in the US would want the European healthcare model.


You think wrong.

How often have you dealt with an american insurance company or hospital? Do you really think they aren't bureaucratic and non-competitive already?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BostonITer
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:04 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How often have you dealt with an american insurance company or hospital? Do you really think they aren't bureaucratic and non-competitive already?


I think part of the challenge, in a private health insurance model, is that disease management and insurance are a bit contradictory. What people want is for their health insurance PPO or HMO to pay their medical bills and unfortunately, the average premium per individual (within grp plans) is still only $300-400 per month and when by-pass operations start at $100K and even simple emergency room visits for a sprained ankle, $1000, the cutting costs and nickel & dime-ing on coverage, starts to take hold. Realize, insurance is like any other investment industry. Typically, when a company in New England covers flood or earthquake insurance to an office unit, in general, it's expected that such an event rarely ever occurs. On the other hand, people are generally sick and once covered, it's not easy to remove all the cancer and cardiac re-treads from the list until their company stops paying the premiums (i.e. a layoff).

So when people tend of overcriticize Canada, they look at the queue for hip replacements and the limited no of physicians who can perform it, in a short period of time, however, they forget that in the US, that person may never be able to get a hip replacement, if they happen to lose their job and the COBRA runs out. So all and all, well off Canadians opt to come to the US because they can afford either the $2K per month of the high end individual no-group coverage or can probably pay for the cost of a hip replacement out of pocket.
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am agreeing with a lot of Gen-X'er's posts. Criticisms that are in the strike zone tend to be at his (her's?) /absolute/ language. People will always find exceptions; that is obvious and people who speak in absolutes tend to be dive bombed by those who are conditioned to cite the exceptions. Because his viewpoint is counter to where the pendulum is swinging, I think his overstatements align with more of an "Atlas Shrug's" effort to pull a herd that is going the wrong direction. (That is Atlas before he shrugs...) In all fairness, because so many people are not doing their homework and not doing their due diligence, it increases the pressure on those that try to be responsible. People who sometimes come off as stress are often carrying the burden of responsibility. People like Obama and Patrick are often lighthearted because they don't carry the burden of reality. They don't take measure of the weight of the debt and the responsibility and obligation that debt is. They are lightweights because they aren't burdened and carrying any weight of the responsibility of their actions. Responsible people tend not to be as attractive because they are under stress. Obama and Patrick never bothered gaining the real experience necessary to fill solid the promises they carelessly threw out, they decided instead to be a flowery attractive pied piper and brought out the childish nature in us and qualified anyone who would do due diligence as "cynics". Gen-Xer should not take that bait and behave like a cynic because he is just filling the rendering of what lightweights like Obama and Patrick want. I mean Obama framed Hillary Clinton as an unlikable bitch and smugly said "You're likeable enough". At least Clinton went to the mat for universal health care. She had the battle scars to prove that she in fact that she was committed. He didn't want to frame the debate on those terms because he didn't have any calluses on his hands or battle scars from fighting for anyone and instead of people seeing him as never fighting the good fight, he played the likeable card and won with it.

Beyond that, think about what people are trying to say concerning Iran. Many are trying to make the claim that Obama's Cairo speech inspired the youth in Iran. If he wants to take credit for their uprising, shouldn't he support them now? I mean if he excited them to behave a certain way why not follow through and provide political cover to those that are taking the risk for freedom? McCain isn't as eloquent, but he understands the balls it takes for the Iranians. Weren't Democrats supposed to fight for the poor and oppressed? Why is it that the heartless Republicans are the ones that are pushing to support those who are exposing themselves in the streets of Iran?

Obama approaches things like an academic. Think about how academics approach race. They come up with token gestures that don't help the masses; they have token gestures that they can point to, minimal efforts to just check off. I know people from different countries and they tell me that in order to get into certain Ivy League schools, they want to see that you're connected to influential people in your home country. They want to make sure that they are building their social network globally. So basically, they have a portfolio of politically connected kids, token kids they take from the "hood", Muffy’s and Buffy's from connected families from Choate or Exeter, and the truly gifted students. Now of course the truly gifted can come from anywhere… I'm saying this because when you look at people who are "Restructuring" or reforming or whatever buzz word they're saying regarding their current mortgages, after you discount all the criteria, it only helps a very small token fraction of people that qualify. You're currently seeing politicians showing up at capital project presentations to promote the token "Stimulus" efforts that most likely won't help the masses but a token few. McCain's approach to cut taxes gave the money DIRECTLY to the people. The Democrats wouldn't stand for that because it took Big Government out of the take and they get power by controlling who and when people get the money, that is their power grab. The government is a big leech. It was government interaction that caused the Sub prime problem with their capitalistic policy to extend home ownership to those that did not earn it, and they are trying to blame the top 1% so people won't feel bad when they decide to steal more from them.

If people thought that it was an entitlement to have health care, they should have been paying for it all along and we should have had more deducted from our paychecks to pay for it. Now that a big bulge of the population is aging people are trying to get admission to benefits they never contributed enough for. What are next, free houses, free college? It shouldn't be government's job to bail out irresponsible people's self created hardships. There is a critical mass of irresponsible people out there voting their own selfish interests so we now have socialistic forces to contend with, basically meaning that people want to promote a sense of entitlement for things that they otherwise would have to pay for out of the pay from their own work. We shouldn’t be taxing the few more, we need to make everyone pay for their own share so that they will at least value the services they are putting on the taxpaying segment of our population.

Lastly, socialism in the United States NOW is even more stressful because we're in a global economy. Regulations that make the cost of doing business more expensive make us LESS competitive globally. The administration of regulations give powers to politicians who can grant permits, licenses, and carbon credits to whomever they want. It makes the market political as opposed to competitive. This will destroy any competitive advantage. Before our Nation asks the top productive people in our society (the ones paying the bills for health care and cost of government) to fork over more of their earnings, they should put pressure on the other emerging nations to establish the same types of regulations that are weighing us down. Obama is a people pleaser with other nations and he won't push hard for other nations to maintain the same standards he expects the productive members of our society to uphold. He doesn't understand the burden of turning a profit and he sees people who go out and compete as the bad guys who exploit everyone as opposed to the government that exploits everyone.

The difference between Obama and the great leaders in our history is that when the great leaders said things there was a reality that the leaders had the will to gear into. Obama parrots great lofty speeches but when the rubber meets the road, he backs down from the challenge. If he truly meant the content of the words he spoke in Cairo, he would give more support to the people standing up for their rights in Iran. If he cared about the people, he'd give them tax breaks and not funnel the money through the greedy politicians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BostonITer
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:28 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

John, I think Obama is essentially what the thinking person thought he was, a mouthpiece for the body politic of his party and two, a seemingly centrist but with a regulatory bent who's continuing the various bail-out agendas of yesteryear... think of it as a series of LTCMs. I had no other expectations of a clearly inexperienced first term senator. Now, the world sees the US as Britain, post-'56 Suez canal, a place in decline. All and all, even before B.O. had become President, China was buying mineral rights, all around the globe to help diversify its USD/T-bill holdings. Today, it's accelerating, soon in perhaps a decade, the whole Forex structure of the USD dollar being the base currency, may go out with the wind. On the flip side, I don't see what McCain could have done differently besides being more opaque about the whole situation, thus perhaps giving us a bit more time before the obvious becomes apparent.
Back to top
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:52 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is a very reasonable perspective, but I have more faith in our current capacity for us to remain a power.

Our advantage is our foundation. For example, we have a variety of newspapers, internet sites and outlets for news. If someone flatly lies it is more easily picked up. Other nations don't have a free press or outlet for free thought. Because we have a majority of our society built on the religions that promote "treating others the way you would want to be treated" we have an ethical basis for fair transactions among us. Because other nations manipulate their currency, it is safer to do business here. Because we have a legal system that is evolved, people feel safer that they will get a fair deal and it won't be a kangaroo court. Because we have a pretty good education system and we have enough wealth, we have a ton of advantages to maintain our standing.

My fear is that we are letting this foundation dissolve and with it the competitive advantage. If we taught our people that it is not ok to blame someone else for your problems and that you have to earn your own meals, people will be better equiped to fend for themselves. When Obama gives people an excuse or a scapegoat for their problems he is just keeping them down and dependent on big government. If you care about someone you don't allow them to be a victim, you give them self defense knowledge. We had a lot of predators in the past decade because we had a lot of weak and lazy people that were easy prey. Being in the midst of this past housing bubble, I look at people that were out there protecting others as those that we should admire. In Obama's situation, he wasn't fighting to get legislation to curb subprime lending, he was encouraging it and suing banks that didn't issue enough subprime mortgages. Deval Patrick didn't protect the weak, he actually collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from one of the worst predatory lenders that targetted the poor and minorities. And these are the two that sold themselves and "Men of the People". I just want people to do their homework and stop listening to the flowery lies.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boston ITer
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:15 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Because other nations manipulate their currency, it is safer to do business here. Because we have a legal system that is evolved, people feel safer that they will get a fair deal and it won't be a kangaroo court.


I want to add to this and that's the concept of 'the market'. The US is thought of as, 'the market'. So where you can get 1st world conditions in the UK, Canada, Aus/NZ, Norway, and other developed nations (without fear of being tossed in jail by a Junta, who doesn't like your business profits)... the size and scope of their markets are very limited. In general, if you look at those nations, they're either mineral export or financial holding ctr type of countries with limited actual churn of goods and services and thus, a more stagnant job market than the US. All and all, along with 'the market' and the heavily floated currency base, the US is where it's at today. The problem is that in the past twenty years, 'the market' went from a mix of production, services, and finance, to that of mainly finance. And that's a problem because that requires the US to be basically, a bank for wealthy internationals, who don't want their money confiscated by a local tin-pot dictator. Now, is that a sustainable model for a nation of 330+ million residents?
Back to top
mpr



Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 344

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:21 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

john p wrote:
It was government interaction that caused the Sub prime problem with their capitalistic policy to extend home ownership to those that did not earn it, and they are trying to blame the top 1% so people won't feel bad when they decide to steal more from them.


Sorry John, but thats not true. I wont repeat my earlier post, but the
subprime meltdown was primarily a market driven phenomenon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
john p



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1820

PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:45 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't repeat my earlier posts demonstrating that the Sub prime meltdown was a result of a primarily government intervention phenomenon (the Federal Reserve messing with rates and the Community Reinvestment Act which pushed for more lending in the Sub prime market).

I also won't repeat my earlier posts demonstrating that Barack Obama, Deval Patrick, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and other Democrats were entirely on the wrong side of policy on this issue and many received ethically questionable benefits from relationships with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Chris Dodd and Barack Obama getting the most campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) whilst John McCain was proposing regulations to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats fought him.

You need to read the amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act which allowed the securitization of Sub prime loans. Now if your a bank and the government not only allowed the securitization of Sub prime loans but allowed people to sue you if you didn't issue enough of them like Barack Obama sued Citibank, what motive do you have to do otherwise? Why would a bank not issue these mortgages if their competition was doing it? I mean if it was so egregious and obvious why didn't people support the legislation proposed by George W. Bush or John McCain to reform them? Why if the banks are so responsible for being predators was it ok for Deval Patrick to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from Ameriquest, one of the worst predatory lenders? Why, Why Why?

Don't buy the b.s. that it was deregulation by the Republicans. The fact was that it was deregulation by the Democrats in the name of extending home ownership to people who couldn't afford it period.

You know what, maybe your right, the sub prime meltdown was driven by market forces (a market correction). What did you want to happen, that the market never corrected and kept going up and up and up? Isn't this correction good because it brings house prices back to historical norms? So yes, the meltdown was a market correction which was exactly what you hope from capitalism and thank God capitalism corrected the out of control designs of socialists. The cause of the bubble was primarily drops in mortgage rates that were affected by the FED trying to correct an out of control stock market and the change in philosophy that citizens were entitled a house.

So what's your take, do you think that home ownership is an entitlement or something you earn and pay for yourself? What are your thoughts about health care? Do you think that if someone doesn't like the shape of their butt that they should be able to get reconstructive surgery and have it paid for by the top 1% of those evil capitalists? So now, if the doctor says, no, you can't get that butt surgery, connected people (comrades) will call up their local politicians and those politicians will put pressure on the doctors and threaten to take their licenses and the politically connected will get their butt transplants and the others will face red tape.

Name one thing that politicians control that isn’t completely screwed up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    bostonbubble.com Forum Index -> Greater Boston Real Estate & Beyond All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum posts are owned by the original posters.
Forum boards are Copyright 2005 - present, bostonbubble.com.
Privacy policy in effect.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group