(Close Window)
Topic: Why Canadians might want to consider retiring in the USA
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 25, 2011 12:41PM)
Warmer weather and year-round golf are pretty attractive (well, I don't golf, but...)

But look at the current advantage in changing housing markets:

[img]http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01324/houseprices_1324699a.jpg[/img]

Yikes!

John
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2011 03:40PM)
That's cause the US is socialist.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 25, 2011 03:55PM)
Maybe buy a home down south, and ship it north?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Oct 25, 2011 04:01PM)
I will be retiring to the Philippines. Their housing cost doesn't even make the chart, and that is with a pool.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2011 04:10PM)
In fact, in a certain sense, landmark, it is. The US housing market was greatly expanded, with many new buyers brought into the market, and the prices of housing units rising at a wild pace of 25% a year or more in some markets, and a glut of new homes being built on spec, because of government policies that compelled banks to create mortgage products that would enable them to make loans to people who in ordinary banking business would never qualify for them. 70% of the bad loans emanated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JJRjX166fvk/TqGI-zFZz2I/AAAAAAAAADE/eQHQ9Utevpw/s1600/Fannie%2Band%2BFreddie%2521.bmp[/img]

The Bush administration attempted to rein in this reckless and spendthrift socialism but was thwarted again and again by Congress. Look here at Congress in action way back in 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Somebody should write a book about it.

Oh.

They have:

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319576516&sr=8-2

[quote][url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361531730887312.html]At the center of the drama is Fannie Mae,[/url] a private company that used its special government backing to dominate the mortgage market and become the nation's second-largest debt issuer, after the U.S. Treasury itself. Encouraged by politicians to expand home lending -not least to minorities and to households with few assets- the company ignored reasonable standards of underwriting and piled up fugitive profits almost as fast as it increased risk to taxpayers.

The disaster is now measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. As for the borrowers who were supposedly to benefit from Fannie's mortgage-industrial complex, Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner write that home ownership "put them squarely on the road to personal and financial ruin."

The disaster would not have been possible, the authors make clear, without the early efforts of James Johnson, Fannie Mae's chief executive in the 1990s and one of the Beltway's most connected figures - at one time or other the chairman of the Brookings Institution and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as well as a member of Goldman Sachs's board of directors.

As an assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale, Mr. Johnson had little background in financial markets. When he was chosen to head up Fannie Mae, in 1991, he quickly grasped that the key to Fannie's success, and to his own astronomical bonuses, was persuading Congress to maintain Fannie's implicit government backing while preventing any bank-style regulation to interfere with the company's operation.

That Fannie and its cousin, Freddie Mac, had been created by the government to provide a secondary market for mortgages allowed them to borrow more cheaply than potential competitors. Investors around the world assumed?correctly, as it turned out?that the U.S. government would bail them out in a crisis and therefore viewed investing in Fannie and Freddie's debt as almost as safe as buying Treasurys. [/quote]

And don't forget who directly benefited from that mess, including [url=http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/jamie-gorelick-mistress-of-disaster.html]Jamie Gorelick[/url] - one of the leftists whose disastrous policymaking (she created the "wall" that separated CIA from FBI anti-terrorist data) left us at the mercy of Osama Bin Laden -- she walked away from Fannie Mae with [b]$26 million - [/b]and Barney Frank - whose paramour was an executive employed at Fannie Mae while Frank was in charge of the committee regulating it.

Whether you want to call it socialism, crony capitalism, or fascism, it was government policy that created the mortgage mess in the US.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 25, 2011 04:10PM)
Or you could take advantage of this generous offer from our Government (pending) http://robertreich.org/post/11881926504
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2011 04:15PM)
Source of the illustration in my previous comment:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/588856/201110201854/Wall-Street-Did-It-.htm
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 25, 2011 04:24PM)
It is my understanding that houses are free in Oz. They just fall from the sky.
Message: Posted by: Futureal (Oct 25, 2011 05:03PM)
Interesting. An old friend from college has just moved from Idaho to Canada, I'll send him your graph :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2011 05:18PM)
Woaland, you rarely disappoint.

I see, so a private company, Fannie Mae caused this. I'm with you, curse those private companies!

And since socialism causes housing busts, that must mean Canada is not as socialist. Perhaps after you move there you can ask them to rescind your health care options.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 25, 2011 05:51PM)
Landmark, are you serious with your emphasis on it being a "private" company?
A private company that was only able to do what it did because of the involvement of the government.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2011 08:59PM)
In a fascist or National-Socialist system, State control of the economy is achieved, and the subordination of all economic activities to the dictates of the State assured, without the State actually taking formal possession of the means of production, as in Marxist socialism and Marxist-Leninist communism. In fascist and National-Socialist systems, the directors of large enterprises revel in wealth more openly than socialist or communist directors do, but the elite in all of these socialist systems always enjoys a luxurious life far beyond the means of the common working man.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are legally private entities, but they have a very special privileged status conferred upon them by Congress, and their leadership is intimately bound up with the ruling political elite of the Democratic Party. They traded on the appearance that they were in fact guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and for all intents and purposes, they were. They profited from laws that were crafted specifically to benefit them. They put into action the political program of the elite.

Were the United States to be completely brought under the aegis of a State-socialist system, you would come to see this sort of thing in every corner of the economy. And the results would be no different here than they were in every other economy set up on such terms.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2011 09:01PM)
Agreed. But because it was private, it did not have the same conditions of oversight that a public agency would be subject to.

Woland wrote: "Whether you want to call it socialism, crony capitalism, or fascism, it was government policy that created the mortgage mess in the US."

Uhh, words mean things. Crony capitalism. Not socialism. Crony capitalism. That's kind of been the whole point of the Occupy movement if you haven't noticed. And before you go into the partisan stuff--it's been with every ruling party as any defense contractor knows.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 25, 2011 09:12PM)
One man's crony capitalism is another man's socialism.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 25, 2011 09:25PM)
Crony capitalism IS essentially national socialism/ fascism. Or maybe it's sort of the inverse, where the corporations control the economy/production via the government. Either way it is only enabled by the government.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 25, 2011 09:26PM)
I have to comment on the Fannie Mae being a private company thing.

Fannie Mae was a financial services corporation (a GSE) created by the United States Congress in 1938. Between 1954 and 1968 it was a "mixed-ownership corporation" (the government and private investors each had a stake). It has been publicly traded since 1968. (It was delisted from the NYSE in 2010 but it still trades on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board).

I don't know that it was ever a "private" company. In most of our lifetimes, it was fully publicly traded.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 04:34AM)
You are right, gdw, but be careful about the definition of "corporation" in corporatism or fascism; when fascists describe "corporations," they are referring to all of the organic bodies that comprise groups of people organized along economic lines, and labor unions, guilds, and professional associations are among them, along with the companies that we call "corporations" in our legal system. The main thing, however, is the subordination of all of these entities to the State.

A publicly traded company is not a "privately held" company, balducci, but it is still considered to be "private" in common speech, and distinguished from a governmentally owned entity. FNMA had a particular, peculiar status as almost a public utility, and certainly traded on it s appearance as an arm of the government. The use of the term "Federal" in its name, for example, certainly implied that it was an official organ of the United States.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2011 04:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-25 22:12, Woland wrote:
One man's crony capitalism is another man's socialism.
[/quote]
I guess you're that one man.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 05:44AM)
You don't think that the rulers of socialist countries enjoy luxuries undreamed of by the working man?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2011 05:59AM)
You don't think that the rulers of capitalist countries enjoy luxuries undreamed of by the working man?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2011 06:03AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-25 22:25, gdw wrote:
Crony capitalism IS essentially national socialism/ fascism. Or maybe it's sort of the inverse, where the corporations control the economy/production via the government. Either way it is only enabled by the government.
[/quote]
No crony capitalism is a key element of fascism, though not fascism in its entirety. Agreed that it has to do with private corporations controlling the mechanism of government. Again, the Occupiers have been sending out that message for the last month. That has nothing to do with socialism.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2011 06:33AM)
For the record, my "Agreed " comment above was to gdw's statement, not Woland's which immediately preceded mine.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 26, 2011 07:33AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-26 06:59, landmark wrote:
You don't think that the rulers of capitalist countries enjoy luxuries undreamed of by the working man?
[/quote]
Call me one country that had actual capitalism and not just crony capitalism and we'll see.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 08:39AM)
No, landmark, the "rulers" of a country with a free market economy do not enjoy special privileges and luxuries (unlike a socialist nomenklatura) unless they actually produce economic value. People who make extraordinary contributions to the economy reap extraordinary rewards, and that is part of what motivates people to take risks and go beyond the ordinary.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2011 08:41AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2011 11:03AM)
What countries in particular are you referring to, Woland and gdw?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 11:06AM)
With respect to what?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 01:04PM)
Magnus, maybe the Canadians should wait even a little longer before buying down here:

[quote][url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/median-us-new-home-price-has-biggest-3-month-drop-ever]There is only one notable data point in today's release of new home sales,[/url] which, and this should not come as a surprise to anyone, continue to crawl along the floor with just 313,000 houses sold. The datapoint is the median home price, which tumbled from $210,900 to $204,400. This is certainly the lowest number in 2011, and is just modestly off the decade low record in October 2010. And it gets worse: the 3 month drop in median home prices is the biggest ever. [/quote]

I don't know about you, but I'm hoping for a change . . .
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 26, 2011 01:18PM)
Housing prices are funny things. High prices make entry difficult and selling lucrative. But since you have to live somewhere, you have to leave the market to enjoy it. Or, as is most often the case, die and let your heirs enjoy the high selling price.

Balducci and I happen to live in a province basically untouched by the current economic crisis. There are still more jobs available than there are people to fill them. But there are more families than there are houses, so we have high employment but high housing costs. How come things are never JUST RIGHT?

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 26, 2011 01:58PM)
Well, Goldilocks found out that when things seem to be "just right," they usually aren't.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 26, 2011 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-26 08:33, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-26 06:59, landmark wrote:
You don't think that the rulers of capitalist countries enjoy luxuries undreamed of by the working man?
[/quote]
Call me one country that had actual capitalism and not just crony capitalism and we'll see.
[/quote]

*call* should have been *show*

[quote]
On 2011-10-26 12:03, landmark wrote:
What countries in particular are you referring to, Woland and gdw?
[/quote]

Actually, I was asking what "capitalist" countries YOU were referring to.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Oct 26, 2011 05:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-26 09:39, Woland wrote:
No, landmark, the "rulers" of a country with a free market economy do not enjoy special privileges and luxuries (unlike a socialist nomenklatura) unless they actually produce economic value. People who make extraordinary contributions to the economy reap extraordinary rewards, and that is part of what motivates people to take risks and go beyond the ordinary.
[/quote]
Oh...like televangelists!