Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another Socialist Victory in South America
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 16 of 83 (280743)
01-22-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
01-20-2006 9:21 PM


Re: poverty
scarey isn't it.
1. Less corruption at all levels of government.
2. Clear title and property rights, especially for land.
3. The US and Latin America to legalize, regulate, and tax the drug trade.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 01-20-2006 9:21 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 01-23-2006 12:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 17 of 83 (280859)
01-23-2006 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
01-20-2006 9:21 PM


Re: poverty
Those are the core issues, imo, not whether a more or less leftist regime takes power except that if a leftist regime hurts property rights, it probably will have a detrimental effect in the long run.
The sad thing is that it is not that the solutions are not there, and not apparent. it's that the political situation prevents these solutions from taking place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 01-20-2006 9:21 PM mick has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 18 of 83 (280860)
01-23-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-22-2006 2:13 PM


Re: poverty
Yea, we've been trending left in a lot of ways.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2006 2:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2006 7:19 AM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 83 (280883)
01-23-2006 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by randman
01-23-2006 12:45 AM


Re: poverty
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by randman, posted 01-23-2006 12:45 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-23-2006 10:24 AM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 83 (280903)
01-23-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
01-23-2006 7:19 AM


Re: poverty
I was thinking of the recent case where all the conservatives on the court voted against and all the more liberal justices voted for the right of eminent domain to seize private property to give to other private landowners and call it "public use."
I also think of an increase in the corruption factor as leftist to some degree since growth of government spending encourages illegal manipulation of government to obtain contracts.
In terms of owning property, I think the fact interest rates have been low has meant more ownership, not less, for most people not just the top wealthy families as you claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2006 7:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2006 6:28 PM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 83 (281039)
01-23-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
01-23-2006 10:24 AM


Re: poverty
... voted for the right of eminent domain ...
One bizarre and pretty universally vilified decision is what you use as a national standard for an ongoing trend? Oh my.
I think the fact interest rates have been low has meant more ownership
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).
... I also think of an increase in the corruption factor as leftist ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-23-2006 10:24 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 01-24-2006 11:26 AM RAZD has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 22 of 83 (281199)
01-24-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
01-23-2006 6:28 PM


Re: poverty
Or people can't afford even with low rates
Care to back that up? Last count I heard, home ownership rates have never been higher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2006 6:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 11:25 AM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 83 (282287)
01-29-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by randman
01-24-2006 11:26 AM


Re: poverty
Last count I heard, home ownership rates have never been higher.
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.html
The 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.htm
Table 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
Even though the interest rates this fall are relatively low, the market is sluggish. All of the 47 markets in the greater Grand Rapids Area are Buyer's Markets. The average price of a home in Grand Rapids as of August 2005 is $161,996. The average rate of appreciation in home values for the past year was 4% in the Greater Grand Rapids Area.
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
Home prices get even more overvalued
Housing markets have cooled a bit, but not before prices got even less affordable than ever.
NEW YORK(CNNMoney.com) - Although many overheated U.S. housing markets lost steam during the third quarter of 2005, most still grew less affordable.
That's according to the Local Market Monitor, a real-estate market research provider.
Through the third quarter of 2005, 79 of the 100 surveyed markets had gotten more expensive, relative to what Local Market Monitor calculates as fair value.
Overall, 37 markets were found to be severely overpriced, which meant that they were at least 15 percent more expensive than they should be, and only 6 were underpriced by 15 percent or more. Fifty-seven were deemd to be farily priced.
While the slowdown in price increases seem to indicate the market has peaked, some regions, especially in the red-hot Sunshine State, continue to experience accelerating home prices.
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.
Care to back that up?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by randman, posted 01-24-2006 11:26 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 2:06 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 83 (282292)
01-29-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-17-2006 1:30 AM


Add Palestine to the mix?
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
The organization is particularly popular among Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, though it also has a following in the West Bank, and, to a lesser extent, in other Middle Eastern countries and throughout the Palestinian diaspora. The movement's popularity stems from its provision of welfare and social services to the Palestinian poor, comprising over 80% of its budget (such as its involvement in building schools and hospitals), and for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption. [5]
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
... And the experience of Latin America shows that selectively trying to purge electoral slates of radical groups merely pushes them to carry out violent revolutions.
That is also essentially what happened when military-backed rulers in Algeria canceled parliamentary elections in 1992 after they were swept by the Islamic Salvation Front, an organization determined to govern by Islamic law. Tens of thousands of people died in the conflicts that followed. "If Hamas had been excluded" from the recent elections, Mr. Pastor said, "they would have said that they have no other alternative to violence. And they would be right."
"The most important and urgent lesson" of the Hamas victory, said Khalil Shikaki, a respected Palestinian pollster, "is that if you do not want these groups to take over in the process of democratization, you have to press the existing regimes to reform their systems."
Many political commentators in the Middle East, including Rami Khouri, a syndicated columnist and editor at large at the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, say that Mr. Bush's seemingly contradictory statements show that he is not really serious about pushing democracy. Instead, Mr. Khouri believes, talk of democracy is a cover for an invasion of Iraq that happened for other reasons.
(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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2006 1:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 3:19 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 83 (282322)
01-29-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-29-2006 11:25 AM


Re: poverty
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?
Hardly. You picked a very limited view, and we expect fluctuations, but contrary to your claims, you haven't backed up your point. It appears home ownership is indeed pretty high.
You claimed home ownership was becoming harder and harder.....I expected you to present historical rates of home ownership versus rates for the past 5 years or so. Instead, you pick a one point differential in those past 5 years, and you think that's a good argument?
What the heck is that RAZD?
Your link shows home ownership rates have climbed more or less since 1965, which was at 63% until today which is around 68%. Read it for yourself.
http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab5.html
This message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 02:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 11:25 AM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 83 (282324)
01-29-2006 2:11 PM


here's your stats in context.
Home ownership rates since 1989
69.1 68.6
2004.... 68.6 69.2 69.0 69.2
2003.... 68.0 68.0 68.4 68.6
2002\r.. 67.8 67.6 68.0 68.3
2002.... 67.8 67.6 68.0 68.3
2001.... 67.5 67.7 68.1 68.0
2000.... 67.1 67.2 67.7 67.5
1999.... 66.7 66.6 67.0 66.9
1998.... 65.9 66.0 66.8 66.4
1997.... 65.4 65.7 66.0 65.7
1996.... 65.1 65.4 65.6 65.4
1995.... 64.2 64.7 65.0 65.1
1994.... 63.8 63.8 64.1 64.2
1993\r.. 63.7 63.9 64.2 64.2
1993.... 64.2 64.4 64.7 64.6
1992.... 64.0 63.9 64.3 64.4
1991.... 63.9 63.9 64.2 64.2
1990.... 64.0 63.7 64.0 64.1
1989\r.. 63.9 63.8 64.1 63.8
http://www.census.gov/...ww/housing/hvs/qtr205/q205tab5.html
Like I said, it's never been higher. The past 2 years, we have seen home ownership rates around 68-69%. In fact, home ownership rates have been higher every single year of the Bush presidency than Clinton's presidency, BushI, Reagan, Carter, etc,...never been higher than the past 2 years. That's a fact.
Look at the numbers for yourself, RAZD.
This message has been edited by randman, 01-29-2006 02:12 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 3:10 PM randman has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 83 (282331)
01-29-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
01-29-2006 2:11 PM


Re: here's your stats in context.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 2:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 83 (282335)
01-29-2006 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-29-2006 12:08 PM


Re: Add Palestine to the mix?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 12:08 PM RAZD has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 83 (282367)
01-29-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
01-29-2006 3:10 PM


Re: here's your stats in context.
What the heck are you talking about? Buying is down this past year because people bought so much last year when interest rates were so low. Now they have risen and the home-buying market is not so overheated. So what!
Home ownership has never been higher, ever, in American history. Your thesis is just flat out wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 3:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 01-29-2006 7:00 PM randman has replied
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 9:05 PM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 83 (282372)
01-29-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
01-29-2006 6:38 PM


Re: here's your stats in context.
Home ownership has never been higher, ever, in American history. Your thesis is just flat out wrong.
If a person (or family) has purchased a house, and has 20% equity in that house, does that count as one owned house or as 0.20 owned houses?
I suggest this is an important point, because mortgage lenders are requiring smaller down payments and slower repayment schedules than was once demanded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 6:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 01-29-2006 7:20 PM nwr has not replied
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 9:02 PM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024