My Solution To The Financial Crisis

[Screw_Michigan]

That's about the most productive thing you've had to say in weeks. Props to you 88, completely agree with your take.

[Moving Sale]

Start knocking down vacant homes.

Fuck the 5th Am in the ass much?

[Dr_Phibes]

nothing really new or original there.

during the great depression, there was an overabundance of milk, pigs tomatoes, etc. etc. and all were destroyed to keep supply down and profits up.

just another bizarre contradiction between capitalism and human need, success is equated with shortage.
the grapes haven't withered on the vine, most of the US production capacity is idle: perfectly good factories sit empty, resources abound but can't be used, people require employment.. but nothing happens.

taking out vengeance on practical, inanimate objects, like a house or vegetables - seems a bit silly and impractical.

[Moving Sale]

... seems a bit silly and impractical.

We talking about an idea from the withered brain of 88shitideas.

[Diego in Seattle]

I'm not all that hot on the idea of knocking down homes.

Sincerely,
Rachel Corrie

[KC Scott]

You need to be more specific - do you only want to knock down houses in foreclosure, or is it any vacant house including those not in disrepair? Maybe you're not aware but there's a substantial glut of "new" homes still available since 2007 bubble burst.

Even Worse at the same time you'll cause a run up in commodity pricing like Wood, Gypsum, etc. to build more houses no one will buy, but at least people will be working building them? One more question is who's going to fund the construction? 650 credit scores can't get a loan to buy gum anymore.

uhhh........

Maybe instead of that we can just stop throwing money at AIG, GM, Citi and the other monoliths that are currently on lifesupport:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29476319/site/14081545

Fuck.

[War Wagon]

Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country.

Tell that to the folks living under bridges.

The problem isn't a over supply of homes. There can never be enough homes. The problem is an under supply of those who can afford those homes.

[Mikey]

Maybe instead of knocking them down we should dismantle them piece by piece. That would create a lot more work and also preserve a large proportion of the building materials so that they can be re-used.

Then we could re-build them and then dismantle them again.

[.m2]

Maybe instead of knocking them down we should dismantle them piece by piece.

Spit it out... it's called a "Mechanic's Lien".


I'm surrounded by idiots.


I'd also like to let 88 know I prefer "paper" and not "plastic".



thanks

[Mikey]

Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country.

Tell that to the folks living under bridges.

The problem isn't a over supply of homes. There can never be enough homes. The problem is an under supply of those who can afford those homes.

The government won't knock down the bridges, so the folks living under them should feel secure.

And there definitely can be too many homes.

How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy? Do we just give the unemployed keys to the vacant homes and a government check?

You forgot the block of cheese that goes with it.

[.m2]

Maybe instead of knocking them down we should dismantle them piece by piece.

Spit it out... it's called a "Mechanic's Lien".

You are generally incoherent, but this rises to a new level. What does a mechanic's lien have to do with anything in this discussion?

Are you really a "lawyer" ?

Or do you just play one in Cleveland.

[Dr_Phibes]

Apparently you can't read. There are millions of vacant homes. An oversupply. They are not needed. )

so why do you want to knock them down and build new ones?

[.m2]

Educate me, m2 Esquire.

The assumption is that the owner of the property will eventually pay the contractor, who will in turn pay all of the subcontractors, and so on. However, construction projects are often started and finished without such guarantees, which gives the property owner much more leverage over the contractor. If the property owner doesn't feel like paying, it's not as if the workers can just remove the building and sell it elsewhere.

It is this inequality during the contracting and construction phase that makes a mechanic's lien so appealing to contractors and vendors. Instead of finishing a project and hoping the property owner is a scrupulous business person, the very threat of a mechanic's lien can guarantee payment. In fact, many states require that any contractor or vendor must first file a 20 day notice before pursuing an official mechanic's lien. Some property owners may dread receiving this 20 day notice, but the contractor must file it in order to qualify for the actual lien.

[.m2]

Educate me, m2 Esquire.

The assumption is that the owner of the property will eventually pay the contractor, who will in turn pay all of the subcontractors, and so on. However, construction projects are often started and finished without such guarantees, which gives the property owner much more leverage over the contractor. If the property owner doesn't feel like paying, it's not as if the workers can just remove the building and sell it elsewhere.

It is this inequality during the contracting and construction phase that makes a mechanic's lien so appealing to contractors and vendors. Instead of finishing a project and hoping the property owner is a scrupulous business person, the very threat of a mechanic's lien can guarantee payment. In fact, many states require that any contractor or vendor must first file a 20 day notice before pursuing an official mechanic's lien. Some property owners may dread receiving this 20 day notice, but the contractor must file it in order to qualify for the actual lien.

Well, you managed to locate some prose that explains a little bit about mechanic's liens. But you haven't related it to the present discussion. Keep trying.

Pssst... you're missing the point once again.

This shit (the thread topic) went down 6 years ago.... when I first mentioned it on this board.

Manufacturing.

[War Wagon]

How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy?

That is the $64,000 question and I wish I knew the answer.

I just don't believe tearing down livable homes is the answer.

[War Wagon]

This shit (the thread topic) went down 6 years ago.... when I first mentioned it on this board.

Manufacturing.

What?

This board didn't exist 6 years ago, and mfg. didn't have diddly squat to do with this meltdown.

But I look forward to your explanation of how it did.

[.m2]

I give up, .m2. I'm too tired to try to decipher your ramblings.

Pssst... when "sales rep's" of the largest manufactures in the WORLD... tell you that their sales have gone down 40 to 60 percent... it tells you more than.... the owners of property's... can't pay their bills.


This shit should have been headed off by Bush and his cronies in 2003.

[Moving Sale]

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)

Do you have a single core principle besides greed?

[War Wagon]

I give up, .m2. I'm too tired to try to decipher your ramblings.

Pssst... when "sales rep's" of the largest manufactures in the WORLD... tell you that their sales have gone down 40 to 60 percent... it tells you more than.... the owners of property's... can't pay their bills.


This shit should have been headed off by Bush and his cronies in 2003.

Such keen insight from sales reps, 6 years ago, no less.

How could've we been so blind?

[GOSD]

Start knocking down vacant homes. There is an over-supply of housing units in this country. Read the following article for the details:

http://www.thelindseygroup.com/pdfs/It' ... 060908.pdf

By the way, that article ^^^^ was published in the Weekly Standard on June 9, 2008. The Dow closed at 12,280.32 that day...

Knocking down vacant homes would be a win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

First, it would put people to work, tearing them down.

Second, it would take vacant homes, which are often used for manufacturing and dealing drugs, out of commission for that purpose.

Third, it would acceleration a reduction in the housing over-supply.

Fourth, it would protect the property values of neighboring occupied homes.

Fifth, it would provide space for new construction, which produces more jobs and moves the entire economy.

Sixth, it would allow housing prices to stabilize by adjusting the supply side of the supply/demand equation.

Seventh, it would reduce vacant home buying/speculation, which is bad for the economy.

Eighth, it is very quick. A crew with proper equipment can complete raze a residential structure in less than a week.

Ninth, the new housing that would replace the old housing would be more energy efficient.

Tenth, it would require the purchase of heavy equipment and motor vehicles, which would help the domestic steel and motor vehicle industry.

I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but I have to say: You cited a source in your post you dipshit! You can't say it's "your idea" when you directly link us the fucking article.

CHRIST!

[.m2]

Such keen insight from sales reps, 6 years ago, no less.

How could've we been so blind?

You live in.... Kansas City (what a shock)... and have the educational level of a "Bush chimp".

"Did I mention you're from Kansas City.... and VOTED... to have a chimp take a 2nd term ???

Yeah, KC doesn't have the sharpest tools.

[GOSD]

Such keen insight from sales reps, 6 years ago, no less.

How could've we been so blind?

You live in.... Kansas City (what a shock)... and have the educational level of a "Bush chimp".

"Did I mention you're from Kansas City.... and VOTED... to have a chimp take a 2nd term ???

Yeah, KC doesn't have the sharpest tools.

What do you expect? They are practically in the same state as St. Louis and they fight over barbecue sauces. It's like Cleveland and Columbus fighting over a food topping. Nobody fucking cares!

[Diego in Seattle]

Tear down uninhabitable homes? Sure.

But tearing down other homes will do nothing other than employ some people for a short while. As it has been previously pointed out, the problem is affordability. People are losing their homes because they bought houses they couldn't afford. Could you please explain how decreasing supply will make homes more affordable? Before the meltdown one heard all the time from conservatives that the reason houses weren't affordable was that builders weren't being allowed to rape the land to build more. Now you're talking about decreasing the number of houses?

Just like with gas prices, you conservatives talk out of both sides of your mouths.

[poptart]

Could you please explain how decreasing supply will make homes more affordable

There is no reason to TRY to make homes more affordable.

If a person can't afford a home then they live in an apartment.

We all should know the reality here.
Bubba fugged up big time by "forcing" homes to be sold to folks who had no business being a homeowner.

The stock market soared in his years and now it's tanked, in large part BECAUSE of him.

He will never admit it and of course his loyalists never will, either.

Such is the political game.

[Diego in Seattle]

Could you please explain how decreasing supply will make homes more affordable

There is no reason to TRY to make homes more affordable.

If a person can't afford a home then they live in an apartment.

We all should know the reality here.
Bubba fugged up big time by "forcing" homes to be sold to folks who had no business being a homeowner.

The stock market soared in his years and now it's tanked, in large part BECAUSE of him.

He will never admit it and of course his loyalists never will, either.

Such is the political game.

Clinton merely said that loans should be given to minorities. He never said that this should be done in violation of regulations, nor did he reduce regulations.

Stop listening to talk radio & mix in a newspaper.

[poptart]

LA Times article written in 1999 ... PRAISING ... Clinton for his policy.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains.


Clinton intentionally dicked with what is SUPPOSED to be a free market.

By doing so, he created a bubble ... an ILLUSION that things were roarin'.

And they were, for a while.


*POP*


And now the left says the economy has tanked BECAUSE of free market capitalism.

Very funnay.

[BSmack]

How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy?

That is the $64,000 question and I wish I knew the answer.

I just don't believe tearing down livable homes is the answer.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with 88 on this.

The problem with almost all of the homes 88 is talking about is that they are not livable. Just about any urban house that has been allowed to stand vacant for any serious period of time is in an absolute shambles. You're usually talking about having to do a complete gutting of the house, all new plumbing, all new electrical, a new roof, new furnace, new hot water heater and a full paint job. Not to mention the possible lead paint, radon and asbestos remediation. For that kind of money, it would be cheaper to tear the units down and either convert the land to other use, or let the land lie until there is a demand for new homes.

[Smackie Chan]

new hot water heater

Hot water doesn't need to be heated.

[smackaholic]

How can you get people to afford homes without stabilizing and re-energizing the economy?

That is the $64,000 question and I wish I knew the answer.

I just don't believe tearing down livable homes is the answer.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with 88 on this.

The problem with almost all of the homes 88 is talking about is that they are not livable. Just about any urban house that has been allowed to stand vacant for any serious period of time is in an absolute shambles. You're usually talking about having to do a complete gutting of the house, all new plumbing, all new electrical, a new roof, new furnace, new hot water heater and a full paint job. Not to mention the possible lead paint, radon and asbestos remediation. For that kind of money, it would be cheaper to tear the units down and either convert the land to other use, or let the land lie until there is a demand for new homes.

I disagree.

In most cases, these homes are structurally sound. They may need windows. They may even need to be gutted internally. This can be done by messicans low skilled labor and isn't that expensive...... until the gubmint gets their meddling hands involved with the asbestos/lead debacles.

Intact asbestos is easy to deal with. If it is wrapped around pipes, you leave it the fukk alone or cover it over. It does it's job better than whatever it's replacement would be. Same with lead paint. Scrape the loose stuff and cover it with new stuff. None of this is difficult and it shouldn't be expensive, but, as with anything else, once the gubmint starts making the rules, the price goes through the roof.

Vacant properties may have depreciated considerably and some will continue to, but, to say that it makes financial sense to take something that has value and spend even more money to destroy it, doesn't seem very smart too me.

Rehab these properties or sell them to the highest bidder so he may do the same. It might mean selling it for $1 dollar. I think this is still smarter than spending money to destroy it.

[smackaholic]

rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

[Smackie Chan]

$1 dollar

Sin,

Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

[BSmack]

$1 dollar

Sin,

Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

The Smackie giveth and the Smackie taketh.

[BSmack]

rack smackie.

"hot water heater" is a long running joke in the bidness.

And what bidness would that be? The wasting company time bidness?

[Cuda]

new hot water heater

Hot water doesn't need to be heated.

It does if you want it hotter

[Moving Sale]

I have a general policy of not responding to dipshits...

Living the life of a dipshit seems to be enough for you.

[Terry in Crapchester]

LA Times article written in 1999 ... PRAISING ... Clinton for his policy.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains.


Clinton intentionally dicked with what is SUPPOSED to be a free market.

By doing so, he created a bubble ... an ILLUSION that things were roarin'.

And they were, for a while.


*POP*


And now the left says the economy has tanked BECAUSE of free market capitalism.

Very funnay.

Who was President in 1992?

[poptart]

Another dipshit.

In 1992, Congress, who made the mandate which I cited, was democratically controlled.



From the 1999 article ...

The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer.


Do you agree that lenders ought to be required to devote LARGE percentages of their lendings to low and moderate income borrowers?

I assume you do.

By what authority, then, was the government making such demands?

[BSmack]

Oh boy, another game of who's to blame.

[H4ever]

Believe it or not, I actually agree with 88 on this.

The problem with almost all of the homes 88 is talking about is that they are not livable. Just about any urban house that has been allowed to stand vacant for any serious period of time is in an absolute shambles. You're usually talking about having to do a complete gutting of the house, all new plumbing, all new electrical, a new roof, new furnace, new hot water heater and a full paint job. Not to mention the possible lead paint, radon and asbestos remediation. For that kind of money, it would be cheaper to tear the units down and either convert the land to other use, or let the land lie until there is a demand for new homes.

I disagree.

In most cases, these homes are structurally sound. They may need windows. They may even need to be gutted internally. This can be done by messicans low skilled labor and isn't that expensive...... until the gubmint gets their meddling hands involved with the asbestos/lead debacles.

Intact asbestos is easy to deal with. If it is wrapped around pipes, you leave it the fukk alone or cover it over. It does it's job better than whatever it's replacement would be. Same with lead paint. Scrape the loose stuff and cover it with new stuff. None of this is difficult and it shouldn't be expensive, but, as with anything else, once the gubmint starts making the rules, the price goes through the roof.

Vacant properties may have depreciated considerably and some will continue to, but, to say that it makes financial sense to take something that has value and spend even more money to destroy it, doesn't seem very smart too me.

Rehab these properties or sell them to the highest bidder so he may do the same. It might mean selling it for $1 dollar. I think this is still smarter than spending money to destroy it.

^^^^^Rack it.

I was once going to vinyl-side a rental unit of mine that had asbestos siding. Having the asbestos removed would have damn near exceeded 40% of the value of the house (2 bdrm, 1 level). A contractor actually told me to remove the asbestos siding in the middle of the night and bury it in some farmer's pit!

Goes to show how the government impedes everything. I decided to just repaint the siding and add new windows and doors.


Although, I like 88's idea of razing dilapidated housing....how are you going to build demand in blighted areas of say, Detriot? Or East St. Louis? Shoot, there's blighted areas in Lincoln NE that no one in their right minds would build a new home if the ground was 50 cents!

[GOSD]

Could you please explain how decreasing supply will make homes more affordable

There is no reason to TRY to make homes more affordable.

If a person can't afford a home then they live in an apartment.

We all should know the reality here.
Bubba fugged up big time by "forcing" homes to be sold to folks who had no business being a homeowner.

The stock market soared in his years and now it's tanked, in large part BECAUSE of him.

He will never admit it and of course his loyalists never will, either.

Such is the political game.

Nobody "forced" anyone you fucking idiot. Realtors and closers made a shitload of money off of signing these loans and not giving a fuck about credit scores or how retarded the home buyer was.