Vice-President Kamala Harris
Probably requires her own thread at this moment, lock/delete etc if someone else wins the nom
whats the consensus on her?
Manufactured by who? You realize it’s literally our job as democrats to “manufacture” excitement for our candidate, right? You think the Fox News media apparatus, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist society, and the right wing billionaire money is just purely organic or something?
I wouldn't pay too much attention to wreckem, he's a tragic TDS case. The real TDS, the one his supporters suffer from.
The source is the democratic national convention of 2020, yes, which is before the election and has historically always been the platform of both the president and the national party. Hence why it is written in such a way that it talks about both presidential action and what legislation the president will seek in congress.
I’m left scratching my head at your response. It seems like there is absolutely no justification to start building
The US has been carrying out elections as if the voting is essential and the vice-president's affirmation is ceremonial. To anyone with half a brain it is evident that what the founding fathers intended was for the voting to be ceremonial and the vice-president's affirmation to be essential.
This way you can have a highly qualified individual decide who the future head of state will be, instead of the common riffraff and dubious electors.
Of course, how you actually get a vice president in the first place using this approach is a bit mysterious, since voting for one is obviously out. Personally I think either a cage-match or drag race would be an exciting approach.
Another disastrous policy from the Harris campaign has been proposed: 25k lump sum for 1st time buyers (to help with downpayment), more (details unknown) if 1st time in the family.
This is denialism about the fact that housing access is more and more problematic almost exclusively because of supply problems. Working on the demand side is going to make things worse, not better.
It's like leftists can't even comprehend the pie size isn't fixed in time, cutting bigger slices for your friends and voters is something that can make some sense only after you put in place dynamics that let the pie get bigger every year. Then ok, play the 0 sum (actually negative sum because of frictions) games to make favors, unfortunately that's an unavoidable part of politics.
But democrat govern states/localities that have the worse housing problems, and it's because they do govern there that the housing problems are worse. Because they block construction more than republicans.
Moreover, in this specific time in history, there is an underappreciated opportunity to allow office buildings to be converted into housing because of structural changes in demand for commercial real estate (lower, and not for transitory reasons). That's win-win-win-win , less new land developed so "environmental concerns" are satisfied, banks get fewer losses from commercial real estate disasters, owners recoup more money, people get the housing, and crucially *it doesn't cost anything for the government to do so, it actually raises money because the property is worth more as residential than as commercial so local gvmnt gets more revenue in property taxes*.
I have a feeling that Harris is starting to go offscript here, in the sense that these are actually her ideas (unlike what happened these weeks which was magistrally orchestrated by Obama, a political genius), which makes sense, they are horrible ideas and not even political winners to get the votes of the undecided/independents, she gained a lot of support by proposing nothing, now she feels cocky because of it and starts spamming her populist ideas.
Another disastrous policy from the Harris campaign has been proposed: 25k lump sum for 1st time buyers (to help with downpayment), more (details unknown) if 1st time in the family.
This is denialism about the fact that housing access is more and more problematic almost exclusively because of supply problems. Working on the demand side is going to make things worse, not better.
It's like leftists can't even comprehend the pie size isn't fixed
Inventory is oversupplied. Issue is cost. Costs are high because money was free for the better part of a decade. Many corporations took interest rates lower than 1% and bought up whole neighborhoods. Many investors daisy chained homes. Collateral->loan->collateral->loan so on and so on.
Supplementing the people who can't afford the up front cost could potentially alleviate this.
Inventory is oversupplied. Issue is cost. Costs are high because money was free for the better part of a decade. Many corporations took interest rates lower than 1% and bought up whole neighborhoods. Many investors daisy chained homes. Collateral->loan->collateral->loan so on and so on.
Supplementing the people who can't afford the up front cost could potentially alleviate this.
lol @inventory being oversupplied. Why do you claim objectively false things?
Keep in mind that even if the line was straigth, that would mean a decrease in inventory (proportional to demand), because there is a growing number of households (increasing population, and diminishing size of households).
We are very close to the bottom in american history, and that's absolute, so even worse when proportional to households numbers, in housing inventory. And it's not equally spread nationwide.
Many areas are at the lowest point ever per all measures.
///
If the cost of housing increased mainly because of previously low interest rates, then with 30y mortgages at 8% (they touched that recently, now backed down a little) they would have crashed, instead they didn't crash, so it wasn't that, that drove costs.
lol @inventory being oversupplied. Why do you claim objectively false things?
Keep in mind that even if the line was straigth, that would mean a decrease in inventory (proportional to demand), because there is a growing number of households (increasing population, and diminishing size of households).
We are very close to the bottom in american history, and that's absolute, so even worse when proportional to households numbers, in housing in
Current inventory measure is 9.3 which is >50% over 5-6 benchmark
Good job posting a graph with no context though
New house sales are at basically identical levels to historical averages countrywide in the US. It had something of a sustained peak in the late 90s/early 00s before crashing in the lead up to the recession and it took a while but is now back to normal levels (1). Population growth hasn't really sped up much in that time either, which surprised me a bit when I looked it up (growth is actually slower in numerical terms over the last few years than it has been at any point since the 50s - (2)). Interestingly the most direct indication of supply vs demand in new housing actually points to demand being lower than historical averages - similar total numbers of houses being sold but the ratio of new-for-sale inventory to the sales numbers is higher than historical levels (3).
Obviously looking at countrywide statistics doesn't help much with identifying problems in specific areas but they do show that for the country as a whole there isn't any sort of significant dearth in the number of houses being built/sold relative to historical levels.
1) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NHSDP...
2) https://www.worldometers.info/world-popu...
3) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSACS...
Kamala claims she's gonna crack down on "Price Gouging" at the supermarket to fight inflation, and also limit the profits of corporations.
Inflation is not caused by price gouging. Price gouging is the raising of goods and services costs to a level that's considered unreasonable and unfair, which is usually due to a local emergency or disaster. The reason we have inflation today is not due to "price gouging". The problem with that logic is the supermarkets are buying from suppliers who's prices are higher due to inflation, and the suppliers are purchasing goods from food manufacturing plants at higher prices, who are buying ingredients from farmers and ranchers who are all charging more money due to inflation. How can she be so naive to think that by her cracking down on supermarkets to stop price gouging is gonna fix everything? You can't order a grocery store to lower their prices and operate at a loss. Is she for real? (unfortunately, yes.)
https://www.businessinsider.com/grocery-...
Also, the WHO just released a statement that they're "ordering" governments to prepare to initiate tougher lockdowns due to the "strong likelihood" that monkey pox will become a "deadly pandemic". Sound familiar? Buckle up then!! Monkey pox will be all over the news in the coming weeks just in time for election season.
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/who-orders-go...
:(
Kamala claims she's gonna crack down on "Price Gouging" at the supermarket to fight inflation, and also limit the profits of corporations.
Inflation is not caused by price gouging. Price gouging is the raising of goods and services costs to a level that's considered unreasonable and unfair, which is usually due to a local emergency or disaster. The reason we have inflation today is not due to "price gouging". The problem with that logic is
I'm buckled up and I'm goin in
edit: eh. innocuous. WHO has raised their alert for monkey pox but they need support in central africa. nothing about global pandemics or anything
I'm buckled up and I'm goin in
edit: eh. innocuous. WHO has raised their alert for monkey pox but they need support in central africa. nothing about global pandemics or anything
I'm buckled up and I'm goin in
edit: eh. innocuous. WHO has raised their alert for monkey pox but they need support in central africa. nothing about global pandemics or anything
That's a surprisingly sane article once you get past the nonsense in the headline and first sentence. There is of course nothing in anything released by WHO that "ordered government's [sic] to prepare to initiate tough new lockdowns" but the meat of the content is surprisingly factual and well referenced, with only the last few lines diverting into some alarmist but not entirely off the wall editorialising.
Of course the entire point of that website is the alarmist nonsense in the headlines and I'm not sure if it's good or bad if the absurd headlines are accompanied by reasonable articles that do absolutely nothing to justify those headlines.
Current inventory measure is 9.3 which is >50% over 5-6 benchmark
Good job posting a graph with no context though
That's inventory / sales , which is normal because inventory is ultralow but sales are as low, because of mortgages lock-ins mainly (people won't sell with a 4% ongoing mortgage to buy at 6.5% as much as they would otherwise)
Another disastrous policy from the Harris campaign has been proposed: 25k lump sum for 1st time buyers (to help with downpayment), more (details unknown) if 1st time in the family.
This is denialism about the fact that housing access is more and more problematic almost exclusively because of supply problems. Working on the demand side is going to make things worse, not better.
It's like leftists can't even comprehend the pie size isn't fixed
As I've said many times before, the 3 industries that the fed gov't has tried to make more affordable are education, housing and healthcare and the 3 industries that have far outpaced inflation are those same 3.
Even kamala knows that when you tell home sellers that many buyers are going to have an extra $25k to purchase a home the price of homes is going up. In the same way biden knew that student loan forgiveness is going to encourage more kids to take out loans to pay for schools and schools know that and they are going to charge more.
Inventory is oversupplied. Issue is cost. Costs are high because money was free for the better part of a decade. Many corporations took interest rates lower than 1% and bought up whole neighborhoods. Many investors daisy chained homes. Collateral->loan->collateral->loan so on and so on.
Supplementing the people who can't afford the up front cost could potentially alleviate this.
Maybe it's much different in the triple comma club, but for your average speculator/investor, those balloon payments are coming due sooner rather than later. Corporate loans are not backed by the government like John Q Public's mortgage is. Banks are not in the business of locking in long contracts for "free" money with no guarantee of return.
Going from under 1% to 7% is going to destroy cash flow and assets will need to be liquidated.
I'm already seeing this with a huge uptick in foreclosure here in Milwaukee over the last year or so. We've got a dozen rekeys on the books for next week for just one client.
As I've said many times before, the 3 industries that the fed gov't has tried to make more affordable are education, housing and healthcare and the 3 industries that have far outpaced inflation are those same 3.
One goal for those has been affordability among many other goals. To act like the only reason those things are more expensive is because the government tried it make it affordable isn’t even a coherent thought.
Even kamala knows that when you tell home sellers that many buyers are going to have an extra $25k to purchase a home the price of homes is going up. In the same way biden knew that student loan forgiveness is going to encourage more kids to take out loans to pay for schools and schools know that and they are going to charge more.
I’m not necessarily in favor of the policy without seeing more details, but I do have some experience with real estate sales. Buyers are purchasing townhouses and condos in CA for over a million, 75k+ over asking price, all in cash. I don’t think the 25k to help with down payment for certain qualified transactions are going to seriously affect home purchasing prices.
Personally I’m more interested in her proposal to build more homes and what the details of that is going to be. But ultimately this is only going to be solved at the state and local level by ending the demonizing of real estate development by NIMBYs.
Maybe it's much different in the triple comma club, but for your average speculator/investor, those balloon payments are coming due sooner rather than later. Corporate loans are not backed by the government like John Q Public's mortgage is. Banks are not in the business of locking in long contracts for "free" money with no guarantee of return.
Going from under 1% to 7% is going to destroy cash flow and assets will need to be liquidated.
I'm
That was the whole point of bringing up rates btw… Powell said he wanted to bring down the economy so that inflation would go down. BTW over leveraging on a dozen properties because you thought the Fed would be handing out cheap loans like candy forever is horribly irresponsible. Why should I care that someone mismanaged their real estate portfolio? Take the risk, suffer the consequences.
No in theory you bring up rates to cool future consumption/investment not to assassinate people but ok, in general both things happen to some degree.
Idea is rates are higher, less stuff get built or built on credit, that makes the economy less hot and so on.
USSR
Kamala Harris
Is there supposed to be a similarity?
What are the odds that "Forward" would be used in more than one poster?
Oh, that's the similarity? LMAO
That's not a similarity. This is a similarity:
.
y'all forgot about the great leap forward
