More than 150 Academic Economist Sign Letter Against the Bailout

Aw, did the little panda get his little feelings hurt by the truth.

Not to worry; you run off to the corner now little panda; we'll take care of everything.

Try repeating Aynrandjohngaltlibertarianronpaul over and over if it makes you feel better.

That was fucking hilarious.

None of your assertions about me are anywhere close to the mark.

For one thing I have never once posted an excerpt from Ayn Rand, or any of the other horseshit you accuse me of.

Most important I am very concerned about capital markets, and the real threat is them being raided by congress over and over again to bailout idiots who are clueless about facts like that sub prime mortgages are a really bad investment as the monetary risk of default is higher than the income could ever be.

This bill is aimed at giving money to such clueless idiots who deserve to lose all they invested, if it were aimed at protecting financial markets it would repeal the creation of Fanny May and Freddy Mac and other such moronic institutions.

Helping the poor get housing would be much better served by constraining zoning laws such that discriminate against for example assembly line manufactured housing, than by the manipulation of banking regulations to the extent of making truly unwise loans seem profitable.

And while you bad mouth Ron Paul, do recall some years ago when congress was again bullshitted into passing legislation that was massively against the interests of the people, namely to go to war with Iraq, Paul was almost alone in his vocal criticism of it.

Is that supposed to make sense?

Really? You mean you run your own business? No

You have meaningful deposits held in mutual funds? No

You have a role in in sourcing funds for start ups? Nope - not that either

You have responsibility for the employment of 150,000 people in the greater New York and are therefore concerned over the economic impact? No

You have direct responsibility for a payroll, or for bringing new products to market, or for solving any serious business issue? No? Damn, we are on a roll here

Are you thinking about how you might put your child through college? Didn't think so

Are you feeling any responsibility toward rebuilding and expanding the infrastructure of this country? That's a laugh

I guess I got all of that just about right.

And this pretty much proves I got the "simply a libertarian fanboy" correct as well!

But you are right; I failed to point out how often you simply spew incomprehensible phlegm.

Yes.

Federal legislation against local zoning laws that discriminate against manufactured housing would tend to reduce housing costs a lot. Manufactured housing is enormously cheaper per square foot than site built housing.

Zoning law all over the USA outlaw them in most areas on the NIBY principle that homeowners do not want them near their homes as they "lower property values" which they will, which is a good thing as it lowers all cost of housing by increasing the supply of homes.

I have been one of two executive officers that ran a corporation that I co-owned that had a seven figure revenue stream for several years.

I am now at another job in the same industry that pays me much much better than that one with far less stress than owning a business with a payroll I am responsible for.

I do own a portfolio, which investments and amounts are none of your goddamn business.

The infrastructure of this nation is built by competent private enterprise who know how to make investments, not by fools and jackasses who make bad investments and expect the taxpayers to bail them out.

Your comments about Ron Paul are ridiculous.

So are you a Democratic fanboy??

And the guy running for president on the Democratic ticket.

But, really good point.

So, your solution is "more trailer parks"? Not saying that is good or bad, just wanting to use clear language (something you seem to have trouble with).

Kucinch was as well.

Obama, had not been elected to the Senate till 2005, after problems had become abundantly clear to everyone.

Obama's 2004 election to Senate did not hinge on his opposition to the war, while he did in fact do so, after it was popular among Democrats. He has a pretty consistent pattern of flip-flopping to match the polls except when it is too painful to his base supporters. His flip-flop on gun control is a classic example of that.

reference Obama gun-control flip-flop

In any case Paul and Kucinich are the only people in congress who were consistently against the war.

FYI Kucinich voted against the bailout as well, both times.

reference

Mr Kucinach is an honest to god liberal democrat and in my opinion an honest and honorable man who votes on principle, and thinks things through as does Dr. Paul.

Shame on all of you, you let the bastards get away with it.

Let people use land they own to put manufactured homes on without letting local governments bought off by unions and home owners concerned with real estate prices dropping outlaw them -- yes.

The trailer park comment is really unfair as for the most part while some people do own the land they put a "mobile home" on, more often they only own the trailer and pay rent on the land.

Even poorer people rent both.

However by market forces if you make more housing cheaper than it has been made, the price should fall.

Manufactured homes are not all trailers, I am including in this modular structures where the individual modules are put together on site on a slab and secured to the slab, and are in no way "mobile" or a "trailer" after construction is finished.

The latter sort of homes are largely illegal in much of the USA due to zoning laws and pro (construction) union laws. They are not "trailers" they are in many ways as good as or better in quality and much cheaper than site built homes of the same vintage.

Anyway, I was right on that point, and you were not.

Excuse me which point were you right on, and which was I wrong on?

You are not being very clear.

What was immediately being discussed was that Paul opposed the war from the get-go and was in Congress at the time of the start of the war, and I am not wrong on that.

I did not predict one way or the other how the vote would go, only the hope that the bailout would fail.

What was I wrong about?

If you mean the bailout, you have no leg to stand on.

I see. I would like to see some sort of proof to your statement that modular homes are "largely illegal in much of the USA." The reason I ask this is, in my part of the country, modular homes are a booming business. My parents, their nearest neighbor, and my uncle up the hill all have modular homes. And while I wouldn't recommend them for the quality, they are nice enough homes.

Ok I was wrong in my statement as it sat.

A better statement is that they are heavily and discriminatory regulated against. By local zoning laws.

reference wikipedia

Having to conform to the zoning laws of many different states which are not the same, and more accuratly have wide differences between them, and are often rigged against the modular home industry is a real issue.


Yes buildings in hurricane prone areas need more wind resistance, but not all of these requirements are at all reasonable.

Yes I was wrong in saying it was illegal, it is correct however to say that the rules are rigged against them.

No to outlaw discriminatory zoning laws that are rigged against cheaper construction methods.

you're confusing building code and zoning laws.

building code was put into place for a very good reason, as well as plumbing and electrical code.

I'm convinced being a libertarian is just a way to keep yourself in a constant state of disappointment and anger.

You do know the definition of a libertarian, right?

Someone with lots of ideas how the world should work, but no idea how it actually does.

as opposed to Fanny May and Freddy Mac and an alphabet soup of federal agencies and regulations?

Are you serious?

It is constitutional as it is about interstate commerce (making modular homes in one state and selling them in another) and forbidding discriminatory legislation that are aimed at protection of local trade union members jobs at the expense of the poor.

If you are not a member of one of those unions, and not a homeowner convinced it will drop the over inflated value of your home, what is not to like?

It is a much cleaner solution with less federal involvement than exists now.

certified electricians/plumbers/carpenters are not necessarily Union, all homes are not Union built homes.

But shouldn't each state (or community, which is where zoning and building regulations are actually created) have the right to create their own building regulations?

100% true, and??

Are you claiming that a serious proposal for a federal law against discriminatory zoning (against prefab modular homes) wound not have construction trade unions coming out against it in force?

The thing is that the whole idea about modular homes is to reduce the labor costs by several methods.

1 - Assembly line manufacture of almost anything takes less labor hours per unit built that one of construction of anything.

2- The manufacturer can move the factory to a place with cheaper labor, if you build on site from scratch you pay for all the labor at local rates, so in expensive construction labor areas, the advantage of modular method becomes much larger.

3- In an enclosed factory you generally do not need to halt construction for rain or other bad weather, so time wasted on rain days is mostly eliminated other than on site installation.

All three of these add up to less income for on site type construction labor, , especially in high labor cost areas, which is where, if my theory is right, you see the most discriminatory laws.

Example of an ongoing dispute where the state of Georgia passed such a law, and the problems with enforcing it due to local officials ignoring the law.

reference