"DSK" wrote in message
...
I'm sure this makes you angry, since you are one of the outsiders who
bought high-priced land less than a stone's throw from Bugsquat.


Maxprop wrote:
Angry? Surely you jest. I bought when Bugsquat was cheap. It ain't any
more.


No, you bought land in a swamp that overpriced (or would be, in the
absence of aggressive marketing) five years before you bought it.

As long as there is a flood of rich retirees with loads of cash keep
believing the advertising, there will be a demand and prices will keep
going up.

I couldn't care less the reason for the appreciation. And you seem to be
overlooking a simple fact: my view of the Neuse (about 5 statute miles wide
at that point) and Pamlico Sound is spectacular. You call it swamp land, I
call it gorgeous. My neighbors apparently do as well, otherwise they'd
probably not be building half million dollar homes on their land.




.... No one is talking generalities here, so save the homespun
economics lesson for your neighborhood kids. Bore them, not us.


And what is the trend for local wages over the same period, hmm? What is
the overall cost of living relative to other areas?


Chicago--wages haven't come close to staying up with RE values. Income
has, for certain groups of people, however, mostly entrepreneurs.

In other words, a big shift of income distribution that hides the decline
in overall real income?


Cost of living
(exclusive of home ownership/renting) has remained relatively on par
with the rest of the country. The cost of living index is only a few
tenths of a point higher on average in Chicago than it is in South Bend,
IN, with shelter costs removed from the equation. Add shelter expense
and it's a whole different story.


Makes sense to me.



As long as it is a desirable place to live, real estate will do well.
When does that trend reverse?


I think I asked first, since you implied that RE did not always sustain
an upward trend over the long haul.


You yourself have pointed out the oil-rush towns that are dead. Add to
that the Dust Bowl towns, the gold rush towns, waterfront in Port Royal,
etc etc. Isolated examples, true, but it doesn't help the people who paid
for that land and had it turn worthless on them.

Nope. But I didn't bring their situation up--you did. Had you stuck with
the original topic we might have made some progress in this debate.

Human natu If it happens to someone else, it's a minor fluctuation in
the overal trend. If it happens to you, it's an economic crisis.

You seem to have a knack for the obvious. What's your point?




NC is doing relatively well--I'm well aware of that, being a land owner
there and keeping up with such matters. But there is a dichotomy of
substantial proportions between the highly prosperous urban areas, such
as Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, etc. and the outlying rural areas where
poverty is and has been continuous for decades.

Don't know much about tobacco farming do you? Drive around out in the
country and see who has nice brick houses with fancy toys in the yard.

You can come up with isolated examples all day, but they still have nothing
to do with the original premise of this discussion.




... Subtract the urban factor and you have a typically impoverished deep
south state.

Really? You ignore the pharmeceutical & computer industries stake, the
financial development in Charlotte, etc etc.

Are you for real? Go back and read my last post--the parts you deleted.
You'll find mention of the cities, including *Charlotte.* Those pharm
companies aren't sitting out in the middle of cotton fields near Bugsquat,
NC. By the way, Duke got beat tonight by Florida State, dammit. I'm a huge
fan of Coach K.

The economy in NC is a good example of pretty smart development, most
ways.

That may be true, but the rural areas are *generally* impoverished. I'm now
putting asterisks around key words, because you seem to enjoy ignoring them.



... As for us tidewater (we prefer that to swamp land, thank you kindly)
types, we're crying all the way to the bank.


Good. We wouldn't you to become one of the impoverished rural types.

LOL. We're definitely not on the same page here.

Yep. Apparently you can't follow a chain of logic that far. Sorry.

LOL again. Logic is not your long suit, Doug. Stick with engineering or
whatever it is you do for a living.





Of course it's happening elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same rate
as in the places mentioned. My property in Oriental has tripled in value
since Jan. '04.

Uh huh.
And you expect it to keep rising at that rate for how long?

As long as waterfront property remains scarce and demand for it remains
high. That has been the immutable trend for as long as I can remember.


What local economic development supports that high price?

See above.

What are average incomes in the area?

Irrelevant. Not far outside Oriental one can see the poverty that pervades
much of the deep south. The contrast between the impoverished areas and the
leisure/boating/vacation/development areas is poignant. Even more poignant
is that the poverty (and the area income levels) is irrelevant to such
development. You can see this up and down all three coasts of the US.
Local income doesn't drive the price of waterfront property. Are you naive
enough to believe that only locals buy up waterfront property in a locale?
Or more to the point, can any significant number of them afford it?


.... And for the record, Oriental is hardly swamp land. The Neuse
River has deposited soil at its mouth for centuries.

Who told you that? Where they laughing?

Your jealousy is showing. But for the sake of argument, swamp land is high
on the list of popular waterfront development currently. Check out the
coast of Georgia. Prices along those estuaries are nearly double what
Oriental is bringing today. That's probably because the rivers around
Oriental have a very small proportion of swamp compared with those same
regions in Georgia. Both Florida coasts were lined with swamps before the
developers filled them all in to make canals and limitless "waterfront"
property. Read John D. McDonald's "A Flash of Green" to gain some
perspective on how the residents of coastal FL felt about losing their
much-loved natural wetlands to bulldozers.




..... Next you're going to tell me that someone is planning to backfill
the sound to create more development land all the way to the barrier
islands (Outer Banks, for those who are curious).

Can't do that, then they couldn't advertise Oriental as "the Sailing
Capital of NC."

You don't hide envy well, Doug.



I think you're envious of those of us who bought when the prices were
reasonable.

Get real. I've owned land in the New Bern area and down the county (not in
downtown Oriental but close) for almost 25 years. It's gone up, and I
expect to see it go down.

If it's not on water, you're probably right.


... Or perhaps your a xenophobe who hates any outsiders moving to his
precious state. Get over it.


Back to that again, eh?

Some things never change. Like your attitude toward outsiders coming into
your precious state. Here's a bulletin for you, Doug--unless you own all of
NC, you really don't have much to say about it. Get over it.



... But as long as you raised the point, can you show me that the Dow
Jones Industrials average is lower now than, say 20 years ago? Or 50
years.

Easy enough to look it up. There have been long periods when the stock
marcket indexes were flat or downward.


Doug--you really need to learn to comprehend what you read.

???

I guess this is the sort of Jaxxian statement you can fall back on when
you've contradicted yourself multiple times and been flat wrong the rest
of the time (except for the part about cycles).

And this statement is tantamount to an admission that you've lost this
debate.



...I'll ask again--show me any state where RE values are lower today than
20 or 50 years ago. Same with the Dow.


Ahem, you said yourself that there were places land was worth only 10%
what it used to be.

Okay, Doug, I'm going to take this nice and slowly, so even you can
comprehend. Read my statement (above) again, word for word. Okay, have you
done that? Gooood. Now, did you happen to notice the word "state" in that
first sentence? Good. Now, when I was referring to those areas where
values plummeted, was I referring to an entire state, or just an isolated
locale? Okay. Now, let's take Michigan, for example, because that was one
of the examples I gave. Are you staying with me? Good. Now even though a
few spots near copper country have lost value, Michigan has experienced a
net property value increase, and has done so continuously for decades. THAT
is what I was talking about. Not just a few towns or locales. I hope that
helped. Good.


As for the Dow, it's artificially manipulated to make it look like it is
going up when it really isn't. But you can look at a graph of the S&P and
find places where it is flat... or drops cyclically to point below... over
ten or fifteen years. 20 or 50 years? Probably that would fall pretty
close to the all-time historical average of 12% annual... which is one
reason why I invest in the stock market.

Thank you for corroborating my point.


You have missed the point. Is the value higher or lower *relative to
what*?


You've lost this argument, haven't you. You're grasping at straws.

Umm, no. I'm repeating a point you have repeatedly missed.

And you called me a Nazi, which means you've officially lost anyway. I'm
just carrying on with this discussion because I'm a good sport.

You are a sensitive guy, aren't ya? I *asked* if you were the Thread Nazi
(with apologies to Jerry Seinfeld). I didn't call you anything, rather I
gave you the opportunity to confirm or deny. And yes, you have been a good
sport, if a bit contentious. I guess we both have been. I think we're
destined to be contentious with each other. Not likely we'd ever be
anything resembling friends, which is probably why I've not been concerned
with looking you up when I'm in New Bern or Oriental. I'll leave that to
Katy.


Thanks, but I suspect we'll do fine without your titles. We all seem to
be able to identify the obvious.


???
Actually I would say that's one of your problems.

Whatever.

Max

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Scotty
wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...

Ditto for vehicles. Almost nobody in Australia would buy
an imported US
made vehicle in preference to a Japanese or even Korean
made one.

PDW

We had a KIA and our son drives KIA's...junk cars....give
me a GM
anyday...or even a Ford....

Both my Son and Daughter own KIAs. They couldn't afford much
more and I told them with the long warranty they were better
than a used 'Merican car. I also told them I was tired of
working on cars.

Me too. That's why I sold my Range Rover and bought a Mitsubishi. It's
why my car is a Subaru Liberty AWD that's 15 years old, 227,000 on the
clock and works just fine, thanks. If/when I retire I'll buy a Subaru
Forester and I reckon that'll see me out nicely.

A lifelong friend in Vermont has a Subaru--sorry, can't recall the
model--with just a shade over half a million miles on it. Lots of
fiberglass and Bondo, and it sure ain't pretty, but it runs just fine. The
engine is original with two top overhauls plus a new transmission a while
back. He loves to complain about it, but if you say anything even remotely
disdainful about it, it's as if you've called his mother a whore.

Max

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

America has sold herself out by not having the foresight to change
with the changing world.

America can compete nicely with just about anyone, but some changes are
necessary. To compete with one's competitors, one must at the very least
emulate them. Better yet one should create a cost advantage for the same
quality, or create a quality advantage for the same cost. The US is
capable
of doing either, or both.

Yeah, but you don't. Instead you try to either convince your market
that an inferior prodict is somehow better via clever advertising,

No one with even a modicum of intelligence is buying that anymore. That's
why the companies building such products are struggling.

or
you run to the Govt and try to get the competition excluded from the
market somehow when option A doesn't work.

Sucks, doesn't it. Protectionism works both ways, but the companies with
inferior products don't seem to understand that principle.

But labor is going to have to recognize some
major realignment, along with top-heavy industry. The $30 per hour jobs
are
vanishing faster than spotted owls, and until organized labor
acknowledges
that low-paying jobs are better than NO jobs, the situation will
exacerbate.

I don't think this works either. You are then in a race to the bottom
with labor in other countries which have much lower living standards
and costs of living.

Dave pointed this out earlier, and I agree.


And CEOs and other top-level execs are going to have to face the fact
that
multi-million dollar annual salaries and golden parachutes aren't
compatible
with the world economic markets of the day.

Yeah, I agree. The cost of screwing up a business needs to be brought
home to those responsible. At the moment it seems that the stock
holders lose, and employees lose, but senior management are immune due
to their payment structures.

It only takes a few years at $20 million per, plus a golden parachute to
feather one's nest rather plushly. Again, it sucks, but what's a mother to
do?


My take? Neither side will give an inch before the whole thing collapses
into a ruined American economy. I hope to be sailing somewhere in the
Caribbean with my money in offshore banks by then.

I plan on being in a nice 3rd World country with a good climate.
Fortunately for me NZ is only a week's sailing away. OTOH right where I
am is pretty good, too.

I bought a piece of just-off-the-beachfront land on a small island a year
ago. You have to understand that in the Caribbean, the higher up on the
hill, the more expensive and desirable the property. So mine is at the
bottom of the food chain, so to speak. But a small dwelling with a good,
solid roof will do me fine. And a boat--gotta have a boat.

Max

Maxprop wrote:

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:


How about real estate in general--can you show me any state in the
country
where RE values are lower than they were 20 or 50 years ago?

I'll bet there are lots of places along Rte 66, (after adjustment for
inflation).

But as you certainly noted, I said "any state," not just a few spots or
locales. For example, when the oil shale fiasco hit the skids, the towns
that grew up around the proposed strip mines died completely. You could buy
a $60K house there for 10% of the original unimproved land cost. There are
some areas in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan where the copper mines have
shut down and homes are on the block for a fraction of their build costs.
But net RE values in Michigan have continued to escalate with only minor
burbles in the upward curve. Adjusted for inflation, the aggregate land
values in Michigan are still ahead of the curve.

Indeed, taken as a whole you are correct. It's really simple supply and
demand, the population continues to grow, more people want land, and, as
Will Rogers said about land, "They aint makin' no more.".

Cheers
Marty

some areas in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan where the copper mines have
shut down and homes are on the block for a fraction of their build costs.
But net RE values in Michigan have continued to escalate with only minor
burbles in the upward curve. Adjusted for inflation, the aggregate land
values in Michigan are still ahead of the curve.


Like I said, if it happens to the other guy, it's an
unfortunate aberration from the general trend. If it happens
to *you* it's a major crash.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Indeed, taken as a whole you are correct. It's really simple supply and
demand, the population continues to grow, more people want land, and, as
Will Rogers said about land, "They aint makin' no more.".


They are in Holland.

One thing that Maxprop utterly rejects about the
supply/demand situation is that in his particular case,
demand is largely created by advertising. For those who
don't believe it is possible to influence markets so
strongly, consider the relative prices & virtues of
different brands of beer.

Once the lots are all sold and the advertising goes away....
then what?

DSK

As long as there is a flood of rich retirees with loads of cash keep
believing the advertising, there will be a demand and prices will keep
going up.


Maxprop wrote:
I couldn't care less the reason for the appreciation. And you seem to be
overlooking a simple fact: my view of the Neuse (about 5 statute miles wide
at that point) and Pamlico Sound is spectacular. You call it swamp land, I
call it gorgeous. My neighbors apparently do as well, otherwise they'd
probably not be building half million dollar homes on their land.

Sounds like you're in Janeiro, not Oriental. Dawson's Landing?

Ah yes, come and join the flood of Yankees complaining that
that local workers are lazy & unreliable & charge too much.




Nope. But I didn't bring their situation up--you did. Had you stuck with
the original topic we might have made some progress in this debate.


Is this a debate? So far you seem intent on ignoring reality
& contradicting yourself.


Human natu If it happens to someone else, it's a minor fluctuation in
the overal trend. If it happens to you, it's an economic crisis.


You seem to have a knack for the obvious. What's your point?


That you lightly dismiss everything that disproves your
assertions, because it happened to somebody else.





NC is doing relatively well--I'm well aware of that, being a land owner
there and keeping up with such matters. But there is a dichotomy of
substantial proportions between the highly prosperous urban areas, such
as Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, etc. and the outlying rural areas where
poverty is and has been continuous for decades.

Don't know much about tobacco farming do you? Drive around out in the
country and see who has nice brick houses with fancy toys in the yard.


You can come up with isolated examples all day, but they still have nothing
to do with the original premise of this discussion.


Aw shucks, you're just saying that.

No, really.

The "original premise" seems to be your advertising-driven
conviction that *your* land will go up astronomically in
value forever, and that anybody who says different is a
corn-pone munchin' hillbilly.






... Subtract the urban factor and you have a typically impoverished deep
south state.

Really? You ignore the pharmeceutical & computer industries stake, the
financial development in Charlotte, etc etc.


Are you for real?

Yes

... Go back and read my last post--the parts you deleted.
You'll find mention of the cities, including *Charlotte.*

Yep, sure did.

I never said you didn't *mention* the cities, including
*Charlotte* but I thought it was worth mentioning the reason
why they are prosperous... the economic underpinnings, if
you like the term. It's not just hi-rises & Wal-Mart.


...Those pharm
companies aren't sitting out in the middle of cotton fields near Bugsquat,
NC.

Heh heh, actually they sort of are. The "Research Triangle"
was considered a big joke by most people for decades.




the rural areas are *generally* impoverished.

Now who's making useless generalities?

And I think that I've probably spent a lot more time in
rural NC than you. I saw the tobacco auction/warehouses
close one by one, and now I'm watching hi-tech cotton
handling facilities sprout.

It's true that eastern NC is generally poorer, but it also
costs a lot less to live there (except in Oriental where you
have to drive 20 miles to a grocery store). And you have
priceless benefits... I happen to like a lot of elbow room.
Must be my pioneer genes.



... I'm now
putting asterisks around key words, because you seem to enjoy ignoring them.


Not at all.


LOL again. Logic is not your long suit, Doug. Stick with engineering or
whatever it is you do for a living.


Are your assertions & "proofs" more logical? You're the one
contradicting yourself at almost every turn.


Of course it's happening elsewhere, but not anywhere near the same rate
as in the places mentioned. My property in Oriental has tripled in value
since Jan. '04.

Uh huh.
And you expect it to keep rising at that rate for how long?


As long as waterfront property remains scarce and demand for it remains
high. That has been the immutable trend for as long as I can remember.


Really? That same waterfront land has been there for how
long now? And the upward trend just started when?

BTW you should explain how the Neuse River deposited that
land there, without any current and no silt load.

Actually, there is a lot of silt in the Neuse nowadays
because of upstream development... what I like to call the
bulldozer races... but for all of history up 'till now, that
hasn't been the case.




What local economic development supports that high price?


See above.


What are average incomes in the area?


Irrelevant.

Now there's some logic for you.

... Not far outside Oriental one can see the poverty that pervades
much of the deep south. The contrast between the impoverished areas and the
leisure/boating/vacation/development areas is poignant.

"Poignant" is it?!??

Just a couple of years ago, my wife and I were driving out
that way, and saw a genuine tarpaper shack. A bad reminder
of the old days, it's gone now. When I was a kid, a number
of my friends lived in tarpaper shacks and houses with dirt
floors. Now they are all gone & good riddance... to you I
suppose a mobile home is a sign of distressful poverty. To
others it's a big step up in the world.

Poverty? Let's talk about the South being kept as a 3rd
World country up thru the 1970s, by outside financial &
industrial interests, for the sake of cheap labor & lack of
environmental laws.

The South was then what the Pacific Rim is now.




... Even more poignant
is that the poverty (and the area income levels) is irrelevant to such
development.

Wrong again.

Developers seek out cheap land because that's where they can
make the most profit.



... You can see this up and down all three coasts of the US.
Local income doesn't drive the price of waterfront property. Are you naive
enough to believe that only locals buy up waterfront property in a locale?

No, did I say that?

Or more to the point, can any significant number of them afford it?


That's right, us ignorant hillbillies cain't 'ford no
waterfront home nor nuthin' like a fancy sailboat.

Next time you're in Oriental, take a pleasant stroll down
Front Street, and notice the architecture of the waterfront
homes. Stop at the Manning house, and ask one of the quaint
locals about the history of some of them.



.... And for the record, Oriental is hardly swamp land. The Neuse
River has deposited soil at its mouth for centuries.

Who told you that? Where they laughing?


Your jealousy is showing.

Yeah right.



I think you're envious of those of us who bought when the prices were
reasonable.

Get real. I've owned land in the New Bern area and down the county (not in
downtown Oriental but close) for almost 25 years. It's gone up, and I
expect to see it go down.


If it's not on water, you're probably right.


Get back to me when you've owned land in the area half as
long. There have been cycles of booms & busts (as you
pointed out) but no booms as big... and that leads me to
believe that the bust will also be big.




Some things never change. Like your attitude toward outsiders coming into
your precious state. Here's a bulletin for you, Doug--unless you own all of
NC, you really don't have much to say about it. Get over it.


Kinda like you'll have to get used to banjo music, huh?




And this statement is tantamount to an admission that you've lost this
debate.


Keep saying that over & over & over. Maybe somebody will
believe you.


Okay, Doug, I'm going to take this nice and slowly, so even you can
comprehend. Read my statement (above) again, word for word. Okay, have you
done that? Gooood. Now, did you happen to notice the word "state" in that
first sentence? Good. Now, when I was referring to those areas where
values plummeted, was I referring to an entire state, or just an isolated
locale?

Did you *buy* the entire state, or just a small part of an
isolated locale?

... Okay. Now, let's take Michigan, for example, because that was one
of the examples I gave. Are you staying with me? Good. Now even though a
few spots near copper country have lost value, Michigan has experienced a
net property value increase, and has done so continuously for decades. THAT
is what I was talking about. Not just a few towns or locales. I hope that
helped. Good.


I don't disagree, although I think with some research you
could find large areas with net declines.

My point is that you are a bright shining example of
thinking that if it happens to somebody else, it's an
isolated incident in an otherwise positive trend... and that
you also seem to think it can't possibly happen to you.

Actually I hope it doesn't.


.... And yes, you have been a good
sport, if a bit contentious.

Really? It seems to me like I have agreed with a lot of what
you said, after being accused of being a xenophobic
hillbilly and a Nazi. I am merely pointing out the places
where your "logic" takes a flying leap and your facts are
(shall we say) less veritable.



.... Not likely we'd ever be
anything resembling friends, which is probably why I've not been concerned
with looking you up when I'm in New Bern or Oriental.

Just as well. Actually I have enjoyed discussing issues with
you, but you seem to get very upset when people disagree
with you.

Regards
Doug King

Careful Max, or he'll post your address. That's his ''big
gun''.

Bwahahahahahahahahah


"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Maxprop wrote:
He's not worth a debate, Dave. Binary Bill, aka
MysTerry, is little more
than an uninformed agitator. You're attempting a
logical discussion with
him. It's unlikely he'll do more than engage in
personal attacks.


I hope not. If so, you and Dave will start thinking he's
me.

DSK

"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com..
..

My little siter bought a house in Cape Coral Fla. 4 yrs
ago for 225K.
She sold it last week for 885K. Almost a 400% profit. She
still has a
duplex on the market that will rake in another 150-200K
profit. Her
property got so expensive she could not afford the taxes
anymore. She
going to retire in Alabama, no retirement income taxes.


Your little sister sure gets around.

Scotty

Just in the right place at the right time.


Joe

In article , DSK
wrote:

some areas in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan where the copper mines have
shut down and homes are on the block for a fraction of their build costs.
But net RE values in Michigan have continued to escalate with only minor
burbles in the upward curve. Adjusted for inflation, the aggregate land
values in Michigan are still ahead of the curve.


Like I said, if it happens to the other guy, it's an
unfortunate aberration from the general trend. If it happens
to *you* it's a major crash.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Indeed, taken as a whole you are correct. It's really simple supply and
demand, the population continues to grow, more people want land, and, as
Will Rogers said about land, "They aint makin' no more.".


They are in Holland.

Until the sea levels rise. Then there will be *different* waterfront.
So you see it's all the land developers' fault. Now they've sold all
the existing waterfront, they need to create more.

PDW