John H wrote:
So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?

Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

DSK wrote:
John H wrote:

So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?


Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK



Herring is a substitute teacher. Period.

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
DSK wrote:
John H wrote:

So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?


Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK



Herring is a substitute teacher. Period.

Well, that and person with a penchant for child pornography....

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
John H wrote:

So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?


Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK



Herring is a substitute teacher. Period.

It's better than being the mouth peice of a money grubbing union
organization.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:05:18 -0400, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
So the unemployment rate was zero at the time you graduated?

Did I say that? No, here is what I said: "The class before mine was 85%
recruited before graduation and 100% employed in the field. AFAIK that
was the peak." This was speaking of undergrad engineers, specificially
BSME grads from a well regarded university. I wouldn't be surprised if
the engineering class at Wottsamatta U. did not fare so well.

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was the
unemployment rate then? Was it a lot lower than 5.6%?

I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

John H wrote:
I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was the
unemployment rate then?

Let's just say that 1- you have a job (or at least claim to) and I have
a job, so the verifiable employment rate between us is 100%. But there
are lots of others who aren't so lucky.

Of course, this is a transparent attempt on your part to cheerlead for
Bush/Cheney by pointing out HOW LOW THE (manipulated) UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
IS (yay!!). But that dog won't hunt. The difference between the 1996
unemployment rate (lots of jobs at a high salary) and 2004 unemployment
rates (few if any jobs, and those at low salary) is obvious.


I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

Hmmm... your daughter is getting ripped off (most likely by your fellow
Republicans).

http://www.nfsn.com/library/prime.htm

The prime rate hasn't budged upward, and the fed has dropped the fund
rates, and bond rates (paid by businesses seeking to expand) are at
historic lows.

It should be obvious to even you and NOBBY that there is a difference
between consumers borrowing at profit to lenders, and businesses
borrowing to increase production for increased profits. OTOH the fact
that somebody is paying slightly higher interest rates indicates some
increase in demand... unless it's a local monopoly (banks around here
aren't charging that much AFAIK).

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
You are supposedly in the education field, John, is this discussion
about economics *that* far above your head, or are you truly blinded to
any fact which does not support Bush/Cheney's propaganda?

Meanwhile, what do you have to say about the implications of interest
rates versus the supposedly booming economy?

DSK

John H wrote:
I am thrilled that all your fellow graduates found work. Now, what was
the
unemployment rate then?

Let's just say that 1- you have a job (or at least claim to) and I have
a job, so the verifiable employment rate between us is 100%. But there
are lots of others who aren't so lucky.

Of course, this is a transparent attempt on your part to cheerlead for
Bush/Cheney by pointing out HOW LOW THE (manipulated) UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
IS (yay!!). But that dog won't hunt. The difference between the 1996
unemployment rate (lots of jobs at a high salary) and 2004 unemployment
rates (few if any jobs, and those at low salary) is obvious.


I refinanced my home one year ago at 5.125% (with no points). My
daughter
locked in at 6.3% last month. Today the rates are 6.5% (all with no
points). I
would consider that an upward trend, wouldn't you?

Hmmm... your daughter is getting ripped off (most likely by your fellow
Republicans).

http://www.nfsn.com/library/prime.htm

The prime rate hasn't budged upward, and the fed has dropped the fund
rates, and bond rates (paid by businesses seeking to expand) are at
historic lows.

It should be obvious to even you and NOBBY that there is a difference
between consumers borrowing at profit to lenders, and businesses
borrowing to increase production for increased profits. OTOH the fact
that somebody is paying slightly higher interest rates indicates some
increase in demand... unless it's a local monopoly (banks around here
aren't charging that much AFAIK).

Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10 markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10 markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.

BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

BTW2 if you want to know something about real economics (ie in the world
outide Bush/Cheney Fantasyland) try reading some of this
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/...cs_primer.html
The title ain't so hot but the material is right on.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
Where's "around here"? Here's a look at the rates in the top 10
markets:

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/mtg...p?prodtype=mtg

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Please note that the only rates quoted
with zero points were 1-year ARMs (a sucker bet IMHO), if John H's
daughter got a 15 year mortgage then she's doing just OK, if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.


BTW none of those places are near me... or for that matter, none of them
are in Florida which I'd assume to be a major market...

The national index average is 6.34%. I doubt any specific market would
deviate much from that.

I just closed on a house 6 weeks ago with a 4.25% 5/1 ARM. 95% LTV.
"Interest-only" payment option, jumbo loan. 80% first mortgage. 15% second.
The second is indexed to prime plus 1/4.

I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life. In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

... if a 30 (the
way to go IMHO based on historical interest rates) then she's getting
ripped off.


NOYB wrote:
Not really. The average 30 year fixed rate in most of the east coast
markets is over 6.3%...which is what John H said his daughter was getting.
Plus, that 6.3% is with points.

I assumed his daughter was also in the DC area, not necessarily a valid
assumption.

In any event, looking at macroeconomic events and doing the math, over
the next 30 years it seems almost a certainty that interest rates will
go up, and stay up, enough to make a 30 year mortgage at current rates
very attractive.



I would have locked a 30-year fixed, but I couldn't afford a fully amortized
(interest and principle) 30 year fixed loan at this point in my life.

Not to get personal, but this suggests you have too much house.

... In 5
years, my practice is paid off and I can afford to pay the principle. At
that point, I can either refinance the loan, or let it adjust to the new
rate.

Paying "interest only" is not a great idea unless: 1) housing is
appreciating very rapidly, and 2) your income will be significantly higher
in the near future...at which time you can pay a fully amortized payment
which includes principle.

Agreed. #2 is not an assumption a real conservative would make, though.

DSK