Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve_C who wrote (205287)	5/30/2009 11:51:41 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>Don't be dumb.<< ad hominem - a sure indication your argument is weak. let's see... <<<<<<increasing the cost of owning a home would lead to less demand for homes, which leads to more supply of homes, which leads to lower home prices.>>>>>>> this is a very clear, concise argument. let's see how you address it beyond your ad hominem remark. Property taxes pay for services that's false in a very serious way. raising teacher pensions from 60% to 90% of maximum salary doesn't add services, it just adds expenses. raising average teacher's pay from $56k to $69k over 4 or 5 years years doesn't add services, it just adds expenses. all this while enrollment is basically flat. so the foundation of your argument is false. billions of dollars don't go for direct services, rather, they go to fatten the pockets of government's special interests. therefore the "product" you are paying after a repeal of Prop 13 is materially different. If you want to do a complete analysis of the situation you should do one. non responsive. if the cost of owning a home goes up, fewer will own them (more will sell them), even if their local teacher gets a 20% raise over a few years and a 90% max pay pension instead of a 60% max pay pension. or their highway patrol. or their prison guards. or their service workers. don't try and obfuscate with ad hominem and lies about the government being efficient at delivering services for the good of the people. they are inefficient and corrupt - selling out to the highest bidder. in the case of CA, it is the corporate unions raiding the treasury. in the case of the federal government, it is the banking oligarchy and the military industrial complex robbing the treasury blind. i would bet you voted for obama - how do you like that 4% INCREASE in defense spending and his EXTENSION TO THE BUSH PULL OUT OF IRAQ? do you care that his whole campaign WAS A LIE? i've done the research, which is why your ad hominem and false information won't fly here. a suggestion - you might just want to stop at the ad hominem, because i will expose your blatant misrepresentations and it won't look good for you. since you can't argue basic economics (increasing price reduces demand), perhaps you can find a way to argue why CA government should be able to increase spending 80% when population + inflation only rose 49% over the last 10-11 years? if a 60% increase in government spending during bubble economic years, over and above population and inflation growth, is not enough, what number is enough? 100%? 200%? 300%?