On Wed, 7 May 2008 14:01:16 -0700 (PDT), milt.shook@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>On May 7, 2:15 pm, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> is housing near its bottom?
>
>Not even close.
>
>There are a few things that will keep it from hitting bottom for a
>while.
>
>1. There are still plenty of these scam mortgages out there that
>haven't gotten through the interest-only phase, so there are a lot of
>foreclosures coming. It's just not possible for the price to hit
>bottom when the number of foreclosures stays high.
>
>2. As prices go down, there are a shitload of mortgages that are
>seriously upside-down right now, meaning that banks suddenly have a
>huge inventory of unsecured credit right now. Add in the now-unsecured
>home equity loans outstanding, and the fact is, there simply won't be
>a lot of cash available to lend for a while, even to qualified buyers.
>
>3. With credit very, very tight right now, there will be a glut of
>available homes, with few available buyers for quite some time.
>
>As much as the wingnuts wish it so, this will probably end up making
>the S&L mess look like a walk in the park.
>
>BTW, on top of everything else, the idiots at the Bush federal reserve
>are selling off gold in record amounts, just to stabilize the price.
>Seriously, we have to get these tools the hell out of there...
Seriously, someone tell Shook that since his knowledge of economics
has been shown to be very highly suspect, he should probably keep his
silly opinions to himself...
"People selling drive a stock price down, and people buying drive it
up. They're not "trading,"
they're selling."
--Milt.Shook. who doesn't realize that when people sell stock,
somebody else has to buy it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a9e76eb835355a76?hl=en&
"A gentleman who owns a group of camera stores says I'm a
business genius, "
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics/msg/3531f8f4530c10b5
....and yet Milt didn't even know what a negative equity is.
Well, a loss is negative equity."
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the
corporation is not made up
of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&
"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary
collateral, while not decreasing the
value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&
Milly Shook claimed to have a corporation in 2004, long
before he made the claim (2008) that he could deduct corporate income
as a
business expense the next year.
"I am incorporated. But MiltCo (not the actual name of the
corporation)
is not me. The corporation is a wholly separate entity from me. The
corporation pays me a salary and I pay taxes on that salary. THE
CORPORATION pays the taxes on the corporation."
--Milt Shook Mar 18 2004,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/f7a3aebb956b7ff7
"And one of the ironies of this entire discussion is that a company
that pays corporate income taxes one year can deduct them as a
business expense the next.
--Milt Shook, Feb 4, 2008 who claims to have been a business
consultant and have his own corporation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b0151278e691117b.
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH!
-- Milt.Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
Canyon Note: I mean, DUH!
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is reduced by the
amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
--Milt Shook.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
Canyon Note: selling stock for a profit reduces my asset level eh?
"When you're (sic) margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset.
If you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
Canyon Note: Milt hasn't yet explained how a $10,000 margin call will
result in a $20,000 loss, presumably above and beyond whatever loss
of market value in stock precipitated the margin call....
Actually, a margin call in itself doesn't constitute any loss at all..
it's simply a demand from a lender to increase your collateral.
"The price of goods and services is based solely -- and I mean SOLELY
-- on how much people are willing to pay for the goods and services."
--Milt Shook Fri, 1 Feb 2008 06:07:49 -0800 (PST)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/5ad9f80a29911b0b?dmode=source
Canyon Note: perhaps Milt the "supply" part of the law of supply and
demand..
I had my own business when I was 13. I cut lawns around the
neighborhood. I never raised the price. I just got more customers, and
scheduled them so I could cut 2-3 at one time. Imagine that; smarter
than Stevie when I was 13. For five years, I never raised a price. Not
one.
Canyon Note: Not ever raising your price is smart?
Actually, raising wages for employees would have a greater effect on
increased revenues than raising prices. But if you're already making a
profit at your current selling price, why would you consider raising
prices, especially in a competitive environment.
--Milt Shook Apr 29 2004
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.liberalism/msg/7690a31a020c6dbf?
Canyon Note: I guess any old profit is fine with Milly....
|
