PDA

View Full Version : Housing Bubble vs. Great Depression



Sapiens
03-22-07, 11:05 AM
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pLjo7-J1qho"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pLjo7-J1qho" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

From the desc.:

A list of quotes pairing prognosticators from the Great Depression against experts from the Housing Bubble. Funny? Scary? You decide!

Tet
03-22-07, 12:45 PM
Comparing the US economy and ownership of assets from the 1920's to today is a foolish undertaking. There needs to be a definition of ownership and what that curtails, because home ownership from any definition that I can see is almost zero here in the US. I know nobody in my age group that holds title to their home and I know of nobody whose potential ownership includes the mineral rights of the property they are paying for. We are a nation of renters who somehow have been taught to believe otherwise.

The only thing to know about what occured during the Great Depression was the transfere of title that went from private individuals to Federal entities. Title today is held by Federal/State/City governments, Fanny/Freddie and Federal Reserve Banks. When the amount of title held by non-Federal agencies becomes too high that title is simply taken away. New Orleans is a good example of this after Katrina. Detroit seems to be another area where the renters were starting to own their own homes. The Savings and Loan scam was another $500 billion transfere of title. Today the subprimes were starting to hold too much title and we are witnessing that title transfere today.

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, private banks will inflate and deflate the economy until everything is owned by the private banks. Today they own everything, during the 1920's that was not yet the case. With this said, how can there be a home asset bubble, this implies the asset was yours in the first place when clearly the asset was somebody elses to begin with.

Sapiens
03-22-07, 02:35 PM
We are a nation of renters who somehow have been taught to believe otherwise.



Tet,

I think I understand your point. But you must understand that in Anglo-Saxon tradition, the Lord has always has the ultimate disposition over real assets. In effect the King has always owned the “royal (real) assets” and all others could only take possession only granted by authority of the King. Look up the concepts of seisen, tenure, demesne. In our case, those governing the republic have become the new Kings and they hold disposition over the “real” and all assets.

some links:
Estates in Land and Future interest (http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/PropChap4.ppt)
http://listlva.lib.va.us/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0603&L=va-roots&P=4932
http://outlines.law.uvic.ca/courses/property/property_9900spring_bell_outline_heather.htm

Tet
03-22-07, 03:17 PM
In effect the King has always owned the “royal (real) assets” and all others could only take possession only granted by authority of the King. Look up the concepts of seisen, tenure, demesne. In our case, those governing the republic have become the new Kings and they hold disposition over the “real” and all assets.

some links:
Estates in Land and Future interest (http://www.uiowa.edu/~sfklaw/PropChap4.ppt)
http://listlva.lib.va.us/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0603&L=va-roots&P=4932
http://outlines.law.uvic.ca/courses/property/property_9900spring_bell_outline_heather.htm
Every trip you make down the rabbit hole always leads to Royalty and nothing has changed in the last thousand years. The Kings/Queens servants are still the bondsmen. Tenant and rent are terms derived from the feudal system. Always fascinates me that Queen Liz and Queen Beatrix don't ever seem to get themselves listed as the richest or perhaps wealthiest people in the world when Forbes publishes the list. Thanks for the links.