>> ^bobknight33:

Capitalism at work in China. 1 inverter living his dream.

Socialism at work in America. In America our government forces GM to produce the Chevy Volt. Very little people buy them since they cost $100,000. The buyer pays $40K and the Tax payer eats the $60K.


"Capitalism at work in China. 1 inverter conman living his dream."

Fixed that for ya.

This is just another perpetual motion machine. You cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics, which would be required for this to work.

Capitalism at work in China. 1 inverter living his dream.


Socialism at work in America. In America our government forces GM to produce the Chevy Volt. Very little people buy them since they cost $100,000. The buyer pays $40K and the Tax payer eats the $60K.

I never said that.

I do suffer from Rommesia though...

>> ^eric3579:

Ellis emerged the victor, ultimately purchasing the piece for $1.8 million (all prices include 20% buyer’s premium).
http://www.johnmoran.com/latest-news/46962-first-phase-navajo-chiefs-blanket-headlines-successful-summer-antiques-auction-at-john-moran
s
>> ^Payback:
>> ^eric3579:
I'm guessing there is a 20% auction fee which would put the sale at $1.8 mil.
>> ^gwiz665:
Was only $1.5 mil.


Wrong direction. Seller pays the fee, so Big LT gets $1.3 Million.
Barely worth the effort IMHO.

Ellis emerged the victor, ultimately purchasing the piece for $1.8 million (all prices include 20% buyer’s premium).
http://www.johnmoran.com/latest-news/46962-first-phase-navajo-chiefs-blanket-headlines-successful-summer-antiques-auction-at-john-morans
>> ^Payback:

>> ^eric3579:
I'm guessing there is a 20% auction fee which would put the sale at $1.8 mil.
>> ^gwiz665:
Was only $1.5 mil.


Wrong direction. Seller pays the fee, so Big LT gets $1.3 Million.
Barely worth the effort IMHO.

Luckys' got good points which most-likely apply to your situation-➊FHA's own site has all the information to put you 2 steps abreast of anything most mortgage lenders know.You may believe me, I was a realtor for 4 years during the pre-bubble and most only know what they need to to secure your business.

Best thing to beware of with a lender is their enthusiasm. Meaning, they should be more enthusiastic about explaining the details of the loan than landing your business.

In choosing a realtor, again, what are they enthusiastic about, explaining each step of the process and all the variables involved for a first-time buyer, or simply trying to get you to sign on with them and show you houses? The first thing they should do is secure you a lender whose reputation has remained virtually un-sullied after this last market crash.


➊ http://www.fha.com/fha_loan_requirements.cfm

Another way to avoid this kind of thing, at least now, is to not accept Paypal or other reversible means of payment. From what I hear from merchants, Paypal tends to be pretty inflexible in disputes, almost always siding with the buyer, whatever actually happened. The ability to reverse payments is a double-edged sword - On the other hand, it gives the buyer a lot of confidence, but on the other, the seller is exposed to a lot of risk if they're selling something they can't take back. In some markets, scammers are quite active.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

He talks as though his key mistake was personal ownership of the paypal account, but I think that really just focused the fallout on him rather than across multiple business entities. His key mistake was breaking the TOS/EULAs of the accounts that he was (re)selling, and rolling the dice that Blizzard would never catch on.
They did catch on. Personally, I think it is very difficult to prevent this sort of thing and that your best bet is to either just live with it, or change in-game things to make the motivation for it less enticing. Star Wars Galaxies had accounts for early jedi unlockers (being able to play as a jedi was originally a very rare thing) sell for multiple thousands of dollars also. Since jedi as a class was so attractive and so rare, you'd have to expect that such account sales would happen -- that is just bad design, assuming that you want to prevent such activities.
Still, it is hard to fault him too much since this was relatively uncharted territory. And, it makes for quite an interesting story!


I'm certainly not saying the guy is blameless, but his business existed because there was a need to be serviced. Buy an account, or gold, or use wowglider etc, the end user is risking their account. The whole industry is a grey market and the first rule is buyer beware.

I have no sympathy for people who pay for accounts and get them banned. They know (or should know) what they are getting in to and that they risk loss of the account. I guess it would be hard for a business to write in to it's legal stuff "Your account could be banned at any time due to your or our fault, so suck it and see!"

>> ^raverman:

This strikes me as a thing that just wouldn't exist if more women were in charge of things.
It's only exciting to male gadget arousal and the little subconscious boy inside that wants to go back to playing war with futuristic fantasy lasers and bombs and things that go VROOOOMMMM.
But then if women were in charge all that money would have been spent on bailing out the industrial complex of makers, buyers, and sellers of shoes and buildings full of doctors and nurses. Sounds like socialism!


as much as this is a cliche: i still have to agree.

This strikes me as a thing that just wouldn't exist if more women were in charge of things.

It's only exciting to male gadget arousal and the little subconscious boy inside that wants to go back to playing war with futuristic fantasy lasers and bombs and things that go VROOOOMMMM.

But then if women were in charge all that money would have been spent on bailing out the industrial complex of makers, buyers, and sellers of shoes and buildings full of doctors and nurses. Sounds like socialism!

He sold the safe, it's not his money anymore. If he wanted the contents, he should've let a welder open it himself. Of course he could HOPE for the good graces of the buyer, but it's not for him to expect.

*promote

*nochannel

*news *money *fail (for seller) *win (for buyer - when the channel is made!)

The Fifth Amendment says nothing about dash cams. I did a word search both with and without the space.

But seriously, standard equipment on a car is not covered by the Fifth Amendment, mostly because private enterprise decides these, things based on attractiveness to the buyer, not by government based on Big-Brother-ness. Auger8 didn't say they should be legally required.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^Auger8:
Imagine the world if dash cams were standard, no reckless driving, no speeding, no DUIs, 3 billion safer more aware drivers.
>> ^VoodooV:
I really want to get a dash cam for myself. Should be standard issue for crying out loud. Everyone drives nice when the cops are around but turn into Mr. Hyde when they're gone. Dash cams for everyone would put a stop to that.


...completely negating the Fifth Ammendment in the US.
Just sayin.

> He wants to abolish auto safety

FUNNY!!!

I am sure when automaker 1 says "We got rid of seatbelts and our car is $20 cheaper!" and automaker 2 says "We've improved our seatbelts even more, and we still do expensive crash testing." that the buyers will set the policy for automotive safety.

I don't get it. How can the money just disappear in the housing market? Houses were built by housing construction companies. Those companies were paid by the banks at some point. 10 years ago, 20, or 50 years ago. The banks then lend the house to a borrower through a 30 year mortgage. Banks buy and sell houses in a cycle. Housing price bubble grows and grows over years, and pops. Home values plummet. How did the system as a whole lose any money because of its popping though? I can see how the banks got burned badly, which in turn burned home buyers. But how does this hurt one of the first actors, the housing construction companies or the home sellers who filled up the bank's home inventories?

Did the banks buy too many houses for too high a price from the construction companies? If so, then isn't the money with the housing companies or whoever previously owned these homes?

For example, before the Recession, my grandma owned a house worth at least $700,000 in San Francisco. Let's say she had sold the house to the bank for $700k, then the bank tries to sell the house for $1.4 million over 30 years (including 5.25% interest).. but isn't able to find anyone willing to buy at that price. Before they realized this, they buy a LOT of houses from people like my grandma (who may as well be a housing construction company), all for $700k. They have no one to sell to and have to lower the prices of their home inventories. Now they realize they've made a huge error buying all these $700k homes when they should've bought them for $500k (which is what my grandma's house is worth about now). So what's the big deal? The $700k is in my grandma's account, no? So how did the overall system lose any money? My grandma has to spend that money or give it to someone eventually, so it's not like it just vanished into the air.

I'm trying to short sell from BoA. I had everything turned in, a buyer with CASH, an escrow agent assigned to the transaction; just needed BoA to say "ok" to sell a loan they bought from CountryWide for pennies on the dollar. BoA's response was a post-dated letter saying my loan had been transferred to a different bank.

Excuse me?

Too big to survive.