Nightmare Mortgages

[RandomGuy]

so our farmers will be wiped out by hungarian and polish farmers, not american...

p.s. prices here are not that far off from yours (in fact cars, gass, computers, books, home appliances... are more expensive, food&drinks, health care and education are cheaper though).

The costs of consumer goods are irrelevant (mostly) to the cost of producing crops.

What matters are all the costs of production. It would be an interesting study to see just how much it costs to farm in Slovenia.

[Nbadan]

blah, blah, blah and ing blah.

Why? Because farmers in the developed world would stop producing?

That is a ing joke!

The developing world can make enough food to keep us all fat and happy.

The developing world doesn't have the farming technology and experience to get the most out of their land like American farmers. They are inefficient, but my real point is that all the extra crops that subsidies produce every year would slowly disappear, and if countries are running at maximum efficiency like businesses, there will be shortages of certain crops during periods of long droughts or disasters.

[smeagol]

The developing world doesn't have the farming technology and experience to get the most out of their land like American farmers. They are inefficient, but my real point is that all the extra crops that subsidies produce every year would slowly disappear, and if countries are running at maximum efficiency like businesses, there will be shortages of certain crops during periods of long droughts or disasters.

Not true, again.

There is plenty of land and readily available tecnology in the developing world regarding farming. That's what many of the 3rd world countries are good at (in many cases, the only thing they are good at).

Please stop embarassing yourself trying to defend the undefindible (subsidies), for Chrisstsake.

[Guru of Nothing]

My advice to first time home buyers, GO BUY THE ING HOUSE. I was 23 when I bought my first house and I honestly didn't have a clue that I could afford it. Go to one of those neighborhoods that are just being built, find the smallest, cheapest one, put a couple thousand bucks down and buy a place. Then, about a year or two later, when you have the money for a nicer, bigger, or whatever you want kind of place, do what I did and rent the place out, or sell it for that matter and buy what you really want. Your mortgage, even at current interest rates, will NOT be a whole lot more then your rent, unfortunately, here in the great state of Texas, if you do live here, property taxes are a because the local government finds it necessary to penalize property owners and not make everyone pay for education (dumb mother ers). I'm telling you, there is no better investment, in my opinion, then owning your own home. GO BUY IT BEFORE RATES GO UP, and remember, rates are at like 6.2% or some right now but the average home owner in America pays something like 9% (someone feel free to correct me on that but I think it's around there), so therefore, rates aren't that damn high yet.

Master the paragraph, AND THEN offer me financial planning advice.

Please.

[smeagol]

Master the paragraph, AND THEN offer me financial planning advice.

Please.

[sickdsm]

Not true, again.

There is plenty of land and readily available tecnology in the developing world regarding farming. That's what many of the 3rd world countries are good at (in many cases, the only thing they are good at).

Please stop embarassing yourself trying to defend the undefindible (subsidies), for Chrisstsake.

Actually, he's dead on. American interests like the Peace Corps and other groups are showing other countries how to farm. There's plenty of tech and land but the same person doesn't have access to both.

I find it funny though how its assumed that american farmers can't make it outside of US subsidies but noone mentions the farmers that either pack it up and farm in Brazil or Ukraine.

[smeagol]

Actually, he's dead on. American interests like the Peace Corps and other groups are showing other countries how to farm. There's plenty of tech and land but the same person doesn't have access to both.

I find it funny though how its assumed that american farmers can't make it outside of US subsidies but noone mentions the farmers that either pack it up and farm in Brazil or Ukraine.

He is not dead on. He is wrong and so are you.

There might be regions where technology is not available, but I can bet you that if US and Europeans farmers where not grossly aided by their rich "I'm pro free markets except when it is not in my best interest" governments, sooner or later that technology would reach those places.

In any case, there are vast parts of the world where the land and the technology are readily available (Latin America, Australia and NZ, parts of India).

And lastly, not all US farmers would stop producing if subsidies went away (and subsidies won't go away from one year to another, they will be gradually eliminated).

So your contention that we would starve without subsidies is cow . Smelly and subsidized cow .

[Nbadan]

You just can't teach someone who refuses to believe what we know is fact. American farmers get more crop per acre than their European, South and Central American counter-parts - period.

If there was no sudsidy for wheat then less farmers would grow wheat. The world-wide price of wheat would rise and supply would fall, but only long enough till more wheat farmers got into the business. Trouble is, those new wheat farmers would be in places like Ukraine, Greenland and Canada as America's bread-basket treks north thanks to global warming. America would become like Japan, a nation that depends on other countries to feed its burgening population.

[RandomGuy]

The developing world doesn't have the farming technology and experience to get the most out of their land like American farmers. They are inefficient, but my real point is that all the extra crops that subsidies produce every year would slowly disappear, and if countries are running at maximum efficiency like businesses, there will be shortages of certain crops during periods of long droughts or disasters.

The developing world farmer will not get the most out of it per acre.

The WOULD get the most crop per dollar cost of production.

There is a LOT of farmable land in the world, not all of which is in the US.

Actually, in some parts of the world, PER ACRE, farmers are MORE efficient than in the US. Asian rice farmers for example.

WHY?

Because mechanized capital-intensive farming requires some trade-offs. You have to plant a certain way with enough space inbetween plants to fit a machine through, among other things.

Because capital is more expensive, and labor relatively cheaper than in the US, any farming process in the developing world that is labor intensive will give the farmer using lots of labor (rice paddies) a compe ive advantage.

Or so the economic theory goes.

In the end it is all about cost of production. $1000 per year farmers will beat $5,000,000 machines more often than one might think.

[velik_m]

You just can't teach someone who refuses to believe what we know is fact. American farmers get more crop per acre than their European, South and Central American counter-parts - period.

If there was no sudsidy for wheat then less farmers would grow wheat. The world-wide price of wheat would rise and supply would fall, but only long enough till more wheat farmers got into the business. Trouble is, those new wheat farmers would be in places like Ukraine, Greenland and Canada as America's bread-basket treks north thanks to global warming. America would become like Japan, a nation that depends on other countries to feed its burgening population.

plenty of americans have enough fat to last them a few years of starving.

[RandomGuy]

plenty of americans have enough fat to last them a few years of starving.

You got that right. I wouldn't quite last "years" but still have a bit I could lose by a stint on a deserted island...

[smeagol]

You just can't teach someone who refuses to believe what we know is fact. American farmers get more crop per acre than their European, South and Central American counter-parts - period.

If there was no sudsidy for wheat then less farmers would grow wheat. The world-wide price of wheat would rise and supply would fall, but only long enough till more wheat farmers got into the business. Trouble is, those new wheat farmers would be in places like Ukraine, Greenland and Canada as America's bread-basket treks north thanks to global warming. America would become like Japan, a nation that depends on other countries to feed its burgening population.

SO then let's screw with the free market America claims to defend by subsidizing the out of the crops American farmers produce.

that!

If America has to depend on other countries to feed its population (whatever that means, given that many American agro-business, i.e. Cargill, AMD, Monsanto, are doing business overseas), so be it.

Don't contribute to the starvation of poor countries because your farmers cannot compete in a free market without the help of Uncle Sam.

[RandomGuy]

You heard it first from me. I was reading about this for about a year before posting this.

The OP is from September of 2006.

[SpursFanFirst]

Why would that make a differnce? You don't need to have it paid off in order to sell it and make a profit..............

I guess what he was saying is that, in places like CA, people were buying homes for say $400,000...then in 2 years, they were able to turn around and sell it for $600,000.
The prices of homes were rising so rapidly out there, people were able to make a profit in a short period of time.

[RandomGuy]

I guess what he was saying is that, in places like CA, people were buying homes for say $400,000...then in 2 years, they were able to turn around and sell it for $600,000.
The prices of homes were rising so rapidly out there, people were able to make a profit in a short period of time.

uh, the post you are responding to is over 2 years old, and I doubt the guy still posts here.

[SpursFanFirst]

I just hope interest rates don't go the way they were for my parents first home.. they were paying 16.9% on a VHA.

WHOA!
When was this?

[SpursFanFirst]

Renters pay property taxes too.

Not in Indiana.

[SpursFanFirst]

uh, the post you are responding to is over 2 years old, and I doubt the guy still posts here.

oops...I didn't look at the date obviously.
I'll stop reading this thread now.

[NASCARdad]

ARM's are for idiots.

[Lance]

Any vets out there that don't know about the TVLB should check it out. Lenders are falling all over themselves to loan you (technically the TVLB) money for a house.

Even if we have bad credit? you have a link?

[SpursFanFirst]

Even if we have bad credit? you have a link?

I just did a quick google search and came up with several possibilities...

http://www.glo.state.tx.us/vlb/land/index.html

http://tvlb.tx-realty.net/?Source=TVLB-Google

http://www.texasranchland.com/TLVB-ex.htm

Hopefully this will help you out some.

[Lance]

Thanks! I goggled TLVB and got nowhere.

[RandomGuy]

Thanks! I goggled TLVB and got nowhere.

That is my fault.

"TLVB" is a typo.

It is the Texas Veterans Land Board. (TVLB)

There are some unique features to the loans, as you will find out.
Bear in mind that the US government also offers a SMALL loan guarantee of about $36,000 where the governmet will gaurantee that part of the loan. This is in addition to the TVLB loans.

Here is the link:


http://www.glo.state.tx.us/vlb/

[RandomGuy]

ARM's are for idiots.

Not quite.

ARM's are for people who are REALLY rich (8 figures or more net worth) and can afford them.

Anybody else is asking for trouble, though.