What if people didn’t own property? Before you write this idea off, just continue reading.

America is fueled by excess. We like nice cars, LCD televisions,  iPods, all the good stuff that makes the rest of the world hate us.  Most people in the US can afford this stuff, BUT, the problem is the cost of housing.

For those of you like me, you live near a big city because that is where the jobs are. And for most of us, that means renting an apartment because the cost of a home makes ownership out of our reach.

What if you didn’t have to rent? How much more disposable income would you have? How much more would you spend on goods and services? For me, that would $12k a year that I could spend on clothing, food, merchandise, etc. If we didn’t have to pay rent, consumer spending would be at record levels. Local governments would have a huge influx of tax dollars to fund projects. The federal government could then stop meddling in the free-market.

What about my home, you might be asking. In my plan, single family homes would not be affected. Single family homes represent the ultimate luxury. Not everyone deserves a single family home; only the most responsible people should have the ability to buy one. My plan would affect for all legal 2+ family properties. All 2+ family homes would become local government property.

Those who cannot afford their own single family home could live for free in an state owned apartment. There, the tenant would be responsible for the upkeep of the apartment. The tenant would have to call and pay for a contractor or a plumber for any needed repairs. Issues that affect the entire building, say a broken water heater, would require that they split the costs for repairs.

It sounds crazy, but this would allow people to spend more money. More money spent means more jobs created, more taxes collected; A booming economy.

This proposal, would in-fact hurt some people. Those people are landlords. While I understand you worked hard to buy your land and building, it just does not make sense that you are able to collect an income off this property. Buying land should be for personal use. Personaly use would be using the land as your residence, or if you operate some sort of business. It should not be used to house people and collect rents.

1) Reduce gas usage
2)Reduce pollution
3)Boost car sales

Here’s what it really did:

1) Gas usage will be down approximately 72 million gallons or 4.5 hours of driving for the US…not so impressive
2)Carbon dioxide will be down 700,000 tons or 1 hour of America’s daily emission
3)Auto sales are up, but me thinks that most of the cars sold are imports, and that credit standards have been loosened leading to sub-prime lending (remember the housing problem?)

The title of this class needs to be changed to “English as a First Language”, or “You’re in America, Speak English”, or better yet “Communicate With Everyone Else” .

America has turned into a weak nation where we have to appease everyone. Guess what America? Life is not fair. Sometimes you win, most of the times you lose. Dust yourself off and move along.

You can’t please 100% of the people, 100% of the time, so why are we trying?

One could argue that they are holding the meeting there to promote tourism…..OR

I would argue that they used Cancun to get a nice mini-vacation out of these “talks”. Swine Flu

But, are these people really undiscovered talent?

I think not. The premise of the show is plausible, I just think the top contests, or maybe even the winners are already signed to label and the show is more of just a giant marketing campaign rather than a talent search.

Think about it: what better way to showcase a new artist than to have them “compete” on a show week in, week out, getting exposure to millions of Americans? There is nothing real about reality tv, and there is nothing real about American Idol.

Sure all of that is bad, but the real problem with the today’s housing market is……

Real Estate Agents.

I spoke with several agents recently in various areas from things ranging from homes, condos and apartments. My needs vary depending on where I want to go. 

So I tell an agent in Staten Island what I can afford, the areas I would like to go, and a few specifics on the type of home. She starts emailing me listings. The first thing I noticed is that all of the listing are at or above the max price I am looking to spend. Just because I said my budget was $600k  for example, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want a $500k home. The other problem was the homes varied too much as well. I said basement, I’d get no basement. I said 2000 sqft, she’d give me 1200 sqft.

Doing a search for an apartment yielded similar results. I tell the agent that I prefer something modern and no more than $1500/month. She came back with old apartments that need work, or some huge luxury pad that was $2000/month.

Is it really that hard to give people what they are asking for? If the clients expectations are too high, then tell them. If they need to spend more money, tell them. Don’t try to sell the client on something else. I understand they work on commissions, but guess what..when I’m ready to pull the trigger, I am going to find a different agent  to work with.

I’m not really sure where to begin my ramblings, so don’t mind if thoughts are mixed. A juries job is to determine the innocence or guilt of a defendant based on evidence that is presented. So far so good. The problem here is the presentation of the evidence, more specifically, the lawyers.

Lawyers will not give the whole story, they only present one side. Lawyers will not present all evidence. Lawyers instruct their witness on what to say and how to say it. This poses a problem for the jurors. Jurors may find themselves asking questions about things that were glazed over and wonder how they can make a decision without such info. Some of you are thinking, “but that is what cross examination is for”. While this is partly true, the problem with cross examination is that you do not want an answer that is detrimental to their case.

Solution: get rid of lawyers and allow the jurors to ask the questions. If the juror has the power to decide guilt, then the juror should be given the opportunity to get answers to everything, not just what a lawyer wants you to hear.

100% (fake stat) of people that finance cars owe more than their cars value. The only difference is the car value will not go up, but the house value will. Hell, I owe more on my car than it’s worth. Where is my government bailout? I want my cheese Obama. I’ll take cash, check, paypal.