Another Socialist Victory in South America

A victim of Chile's past becomes its future Seems all the news I see is more concerned with her being a woman than being a socialist. Perhaps it is because the previous leader was also socialist, perhaps it is because of latent sexism.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*17*2006 01:31 AM{typo in title}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*23*2006 07:21 AM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It struck me because the first article I read didn't mention her politics at all.It seems to me that the politics is more important to judge what the leader will do, but that would just be my lil ol humble opinion eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

scarey isn't it. Unfortunately I see the US moving more in the other direction. Perhaps there will be a meeting of minds eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What does "trending left" have to do with it?We have more corruption, and less ability for people to own property due to lower real wages from the poor economy with more ownership vested in the top wealthy families and we have more regulations on drugs than ever before, including the absurd 3-strikes laws.Thus we have more of the three things YOU listed that South America would need to overcome.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

One bizarre and pretty universally vilified decision is what you use as a national standard for an ongoing trend? Oh my. Or people can't afford even with low rates: the rates are low because of low demand eh? People (rich) trying to lend money can't find takers (poor). We are each entitled to our own prejudices. I'll let the facts speak. Some estimates put GOP politicians at 90% corrupt and DEMs at 60% ... last year, IIRC. Part of the problem is a total lack of any real penalty: give the tainted money away and get a slap on the wrist eh (and ignore the fact it should never have been taken in the first place)?I think of it more in terms of the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - so the longer any party remains in any kind of power position it becomes increasingly corrupt, and the more power they control the more corrupt they are likely to become.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You need to question what "homeownership rates" really measure.From
http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab5.html
http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab1.htmlThe first column is "ownership" the second is "vacancy" and the third is the net difference:

	2005 2nd /4er	68.6	1.8	66.8
2005 1st /4er	69.1	1.8	67.3
2004 4th /4er	69.2	1.7	67.5
2004 3rd /4er	69.0	1.7	67.3
2004 2nd /4er	69.2	1.7	67.5
2004 1st /4er	68.6	1.8	66.8
2003 4th /4er	68.0	1.7	66.3
2003 3rd /4er	68.0	1.7	66.3
2003 2nd /4er	68.4	1.9	66.5
2003 1st /4er	68.6	1.8	66.8
2002 4th /4er	67.8	1.7	66.1
2002 3rd /4er	67.6	1.7	65.9
2002 2nd /4er	68.0	1.7	66.3
2002 1st /4er	68.3	1.7	66.6
2001 4th /4er	67.5	1.5	66.0
2001 3rd /4er	67.7	1.8	65.9
2001 2nd /4er	68.1	1.9	66.2
2001 1st /4er	68.0	1.8	66.2
2000 4th /4er	67.1	1.6	65.5
2000 3rd /4er	67.2	1.5	65.7
2000 2nd /4er	67.7	1.6	66.1
2000 1st /4er	67.5	1.6	65.9

What I see is a fairly static line over the last 5 years with some variation around the mean and perhaps a long term trend towards increased ownership (possibly due as much to less proportion of rental property being available as any other factor).Really all this shows is that some people live in houses (~2/3rds) and some people live in apartments (~1/3).It says nothing about the value of the dwellings and whether the market is moving lots of houses or very little houses and whether the houses are selling for more of less than they were in previous years. You could have 1% of houses changing hands or 50% of houses changing hands and the above data would be unaffected.The bare rate of home ownership does not support your position.From:
http://www.census.gov/...www/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab7.htmTable 7. Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:

                        Second   Second
Age of householder      Quarter  Quarter
2004     2005
​
United States.......      69.2     68.6
​
Under 35 years..     43.6     42.8
35 to 44 years..     69.4     68.7
45 to 54 years..     77.0     76.3
55 to 64 years..     82.4     81.3
65 years and over..  81.1     80.3

This shows declining ownership in each age category, rather at odds with the first set of data, though it is based on the same census numbers? Curious eh? But lets move on to the real (estate) information ...Here's a snapshot of one area:
RealEstate.com Grand Rapids, MI - Market Conditions All markets are buyers markets... if they have the money, eh?How much is this a trend across the USof(N)A?Well here's another view:
Home prices are less affordable than ever - Jan. 23, 2006 Now what's curious is that the way they determine whether the housing is overpriced or not is based on the earning potential available in the different areas - they figure what housing should cost based on the earnings potentials.(37x1.15 + 6x0.85 + 57x1.00)/100 = 1.05 quick ballpark average overvalued nationwide (ignoring several factors like population sizes etc).... on an overall average, house prices exceed ability to purchase.Also of interest is where Grand Rapids fits in the picture:

Grand Rapids MI  	$161.9  	$160.9  	1%

Static in terms of housing versus wages, yet "All of the 47 markets in the greater Grand Rapids Area are Buyer's Markets" -- people are selling more houses than people are buying: conclusion?This one example is a hair (1%) over the "equilibrium value" where house price matches earnings\purchasing potential, and the average condition in the USof(N)A is that house prices exceed earnings\purchasing potential (according to this survey).Ergo: on average, people can't afford to buy homes, even with low mortgage rates. Done.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

While I wouldn't call Hamas a "socialist" organization overall, certainly their program of providing schools and medical resources falls into this category - the political side of the party rather than the "militaristic" side if you will.Hamas - Wikipedia Then there are the lessons learned from trying to influence elections in other countries, whether by direct pressure or through aid programs:A Little Democracy or a Genie Unbottled - The New York Times (So it ain't just us liberals in the US that think that? wow.)And the the other lesson of this election is that the way people are treated by militaristic regimes like Sharon's Israel and the Neo-Con "pax americana" also make a difference in the way they are perceived by the voting public ....I expected a Hamas victory when it became known that the Bush administration was aiding the Fatah election campaign. On top of corruption within Fatah and the failure of Fatah to reach a resolution with Israel.Once again we see that the narrowsighted Bush\Sharon program for dealing with terrorism has failed.If you don't deal with the concerns of the people, that make the terrorist option popular, then you will continue to have terrorism.Bush says he won't deal with a country that refuses to recognize Israels right to exist ... after invading Iraq because he refused to recognize the Iraq governments right to exist ... what hypocrisy eh?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What I showed you was that "home ownership rates" were not a measure of the economic movement of the housing market.A relatively miniscule trend to climb over the last half centrury does not measure the absolute fluctuations of the numbers of houses being bought and sold.Real estate figures do. Real estate figures say (1) buying is down and (2) prices do not match income.As usual you did not address the point but kept to your strawman styule argument. Cherry pick your stats to make yourself comfortable, but don't expect me to buy it when all you do is present an already refuted argument.Enjoy.ps -- this is also diverging from the topic at hand ...This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 03:20 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Bump ---- to get back on topic ....

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

According to the census bureau their data includes in homeownership with any mortgage on the property as 100% owned -- there could be zero down and it would count.Ownership rates have nothing to do with the market of buying and selling houses, as the rate of change could be anywhere from 1% to 100% and still end up with the same "ownership" levels. The rates don't say whether people are buying up, or buying down, or managing to do with the house they have even though it no longer suits their needs.Randmans use of "ownership rates" is therefore a totally bogus strawman to the argument of how many houses are being bought and sold and the ability of people to do same.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

LOL. You are still on ownership rates not buying and selling rates. It's a false argument.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually you are way more on topic than Randman.BUT:Does anyone not living in Bolivia have any right to say how that country is run, especially by a democratically elected government?Doesn't any country have the legal right to make whatever drugs they see fit to legalize be legalized?How long does the vacuous reactionary "war" on drugs being carried to other countries have to be extended before people realize that the problem is not in other countries, but here at home?If there were no market there would be no problem. If the drugs were legalized here there would be no problem.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 09:14 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And it includes the vacant home I "own" back in Grand Rapids MI that I have been trying to sell for over a year.And "ownership rate" has nothing to do with the movement of the market, which is what my point is about originally: houses are not selling because people cannot afford them (yet they are still "owned" so citing the ownership rate is bogus).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Excellent post. Especially when you get to the Waltons (walmart, sams club) that cannot do enough work in a day to justify their income - it comes from robbing their employees of a fair salary.(ps - you have mail re new column material)

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And the rate is pretty constant at about 2/3rds, so a 1% change over 5 years has a massive effect on the numbers of units available to purchase? SUDDENLY people can no longer buy homes? ROFLOL.My thesis is that people are not buying houses these days because they can't afford them -- and that is why interest rates are low.I am talking about the GROSS numbers of units sold in a year being down from previous years.I have presented information that this in fact is the case - information from real estate sources - that show (a) low movement of housing units compared to previous years and (2) house prices currently exceeding ability to own houses.You continue to use the "ownership rate" in blind ignorance of the irrelevance of it to my points. All it measures is a NET difference in numbers of owned houses, and has no bearing on the GROSS numbers of units changing hands, and even includes houses that cannot be sold (the houses are still owned eh?).Let me try it one more time and see if I can get through:Take your "ownership rates" and derive from them the GROSS numbers of units that changed hands in the last 10 years, on a year by year basis. Show that -- in GROSS numbers of transactions, not NET transactions -- that more houses are being sold than in previous years.Unless you can do that your argument is just more wasted bandwidth typical of many of your arguments, and it will be pointless to proceed with you on it, because you fail (or chose not) to understand the issue, but will go on ad nauseum about it. LOL again. My thesis is backed by the evidence I presented. You have yet (as usual) to show any that counters it, but continue (as usual) to use an argument that HAS been refuted.It also reflects on all your other arguments and little comments (such as "all evos are etc").Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.