What is so great about owning vs. renting?

Everyone's experience with the fundamental need for shelter may be different, but having heard from the elite for so many years about the virtue of owning a house I would like to apply some personal experience to this aspect of life. Individuals and groups make decisions based on the utility, value, or benefits of those choices, trying to maximize gains or minimize losses. At least that is how humans operate in the economic world of rational actor theory. Tradition, propaganda, and ignorance can influence the rationality of actions. I recall Paul Krugman writing about the particular fixation on home ownership in the Anglo-Saxon world in The Conscience of a Liberal, "an Englishman's home is his castle." 

So, it might be a question worth examining in light of the financial meltdown that was caused by too many exotic mortgages and too many buyers not ready for them. I'm not going to play the "blame the victim" card so many do, that it is the fault of people buying and not the brokers and banks. All you have to look at is who gained and who lost to tell the real story, banks bailed out and millions foreclosed on out in the street. But that really isn't the point of why I'm writing.

Maybe it is just me, but we seem to be living in a much more transient society these days, changing jobs and residences far more often than in the past. When I got out of the service I had to live with my folks for a few months while I got a job and readjusted to civilian life but rented my first apartment soon thereafter. It was a modest Cape Cod house that my stepfather was trying to sell, so I was the "caretaker" in the short term. He cut me a deal on rent so that he had someone to mow the lawn and stuff until it sold and not eat the whole mortgage payment. That arrangement only lasted a few months as well, as did the apartment after that, and the apartment after that. I even traded my compact car in on an SUV so I could pack easier and never really bought any furniture beyond the handmedown bed, couch and dresser my parents gave me since I never lived anywhere long enough to need it.

I finally said 'enough!' and bought a modest Cape Cod house just like the one I started out in, but for three times the rent (mortgage+escrow) and twice what I was paying on my last apartment. Society teaches us that, even on such a modest scale, buying and owning is superior to renting because of tax deductions and the value of property always goes up. Right? How many people have found that to be true, show of hands? I think I did get a bit of a tax advantage through the years (I actually lived in that house longer than any other place in my life) but I do not think I came out ahead of friends who rented comparable houses. How about rising value and increasing equity? Well, as most people did in those days, I refinanced to a lower rate and my payment went down but it added in fees more than what I had paid down in principle.

Then, after two layoffs and a divorce I finally said goodbye to that house. The initial sale price was 19% higher than what I paid 6 years previously, which is not out of line by any means (the previous owners doubled the price in 7 years) but that was a seller's market and I needed to move during a buyer's market. I moved in December and the house didn't sell until the next November, after paying the realtor's fee I came out $5k ahead but had to pay $7k in mortgage payments during that time. So, it was pretty lousy for me but good for the realtor and bank. I'm not saying owning=bad, renting=good. Twice before that I was kicked out of apartments because the house sold to someone new, but man, does it have to be so hard just to keep a roof over your head?

My wife and I are thinking about moving, whether in the next three months or three years, and hoping that what happened to my old place doesn't happen to us with this one. But with job changes, school changes, and a growing family, the future is pretty uncertain right now. I know I had a greater point to this post, but it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I think it was that the benefits of owning, mostly the tax deductions, have been meaningless because our standard deduction was greater than itemizing (I know that jarrs against the popular myth of how overtaxed Wisconsinites are) and units in our building are selling for less than what we owe on the mortgage, right now with the commission we'd probably lose money selling. So, I think the point was, in my family's situation, we have all the responsibility and none of the benefits for owning. It seems to all come down to luck, just like Arriana Huffington said recently. In the On-Your-Own society, there are a few winners and a lot of losers and the deck is stacked pretty far against us regular folks.

I renounce my fealty to the Federal government

Yes, you read that right. I no longer believe in a united, national government for the US. All that I believe in, fair business practices, laws that respect workers and their labor, a social safety net, progressive taxation, civil liberties, and so on are really no longer applicable to a considerable minority of people in this country. The Roman Empire split into seperate halves in a first official, under Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, and then de facto basis after the death of Theodosius. It is time for the US to admit that one American nation is no longer the case and make preparations for division. This would have been easier if Lincoln had just let the South go and try to evacuate as many slaves as possible for resettlement in the North or as a colonization system that was popular in some contemporary circles, but over half a million Americans had to die to keep the anti-democratic elements inside. Oh well, lesson learned.

What got me thinking about this was several more Liberal commentators, Michael Moore most prominent among them, saying that President Obama and the Democrats would fix the country for conservatives as well. The screeching has really reached a fervent pitch, teabaggers and their fellow travelers don't want the country fixed, they want it to fall. To be replaced with whatever libertarian theocractic fantasy they promote this week and it is time to let them. And good riddence, for about 2 generations (say, 1933-1980) we had a grown-up, middle class nation with reasonably competent government, economy, and culture but the last generation or so that has more or less fallen apart. It is no use to try and peel back the talons of propaganda and mind control to even begin the process of rebuilding that society, the minority that does not believe in America anymore just needs to go its own way.

I propose a referendum, Red or Blue. Do you want to live in a society that works together to try and address problems? Or do you want to live in a libertarian theocracy where you're free to shop, free to rent yourself to a corporation, and free to judge anyone you want as an infidel and watch their every move for sedition? Then, I can pledge alliegance to a country shorn of people who hate my guts. Some state boundaries may have to be moved to make the new countries contiguous and we on the Blue side will ensure that the Reds have access to ocean ports. New capitals can be built, the Federal debt can be allocated on a per capita basis (more than fair considering the bulk of that debt was incurred by Reagan and Bush jr.) and Federal assets can be divided in the same way.

Individuals who elect to remain in the Blue country will by definition consent to pay whatever taxes the majority votes for, whatever laws and regulations that majority feels are appropriate and be entitled to whatever services and programs the majority enacts, we will tolerate no more stubborn obstruction. Businesses that remain in the Blue country will respect those laws as well. Obviously, the Red country will encompass portions of the south and interior west. Those parasitic regions that huff and puff about being self-reliant will no longer be subsidized by the Blue country and will have to get along somehow. But think about it my tea-bagging friends, you can be free to own as many guns as you want, no taxes, no services, you can put God back into schools that are completely private and have no obligation to teach silly concepts like evolution. We in the Blue country will be free to organize whatever social contract we see fit, without the interference of lobbyists or militias.

You conservatives can then live your lives exactly how you like, free to shoot anyone who trespasses on your property, free to be poisoned by unregulated food, water, and drugs. Free to be paid whatever wage the market will bear and free to buy inelastic items like energy and healthcare for whatever the monopolies charge. There can be no constructive dialogue between us, no compromises, it is best that we go our seperate ways.

Now it's a contract from America?

The teabaggers and their corporate backers have now released an astroturf, pseudo-manifesto of their demands on a country of 304 million that was endorsed by a whopping 450,000 medievalists out there. This rehash of supposedly principled policy reforms with self-righteous "responsibility" type recommendations is incredibly vague at points, harmful to most of the people and planet should not to be taken seriously by any member of the reality-based community.

First, where was this outrage when Bush was hugely increasing the size, scope, and reach of the Federal government? Deficits did not bother the everpresent angry white people who have coalesced into the teabaggers. Doubling the national debt for the benefit of the corporate class, privatizing the military in our disasterous colonization of Iraq, and the devestation of schools across the country was shrugged off. Perhaps the results of a recent poll and analysis of tea party supporters sheds light on things. Supporters of the english only crowd (with the great mastery of the language) seem to include frustrated or cast-out members of the business class who thought if only the gravy train kept running long enough, some of those earmarks and no bid contracts might just trickle down to them. Now the biggest fear seems to be that the goodies will bypass the petty predators and go right to the poor (read: blacks).

It must take incredible discipline to not see how ridiculous it is to demand "free-market" fealty from Democrats while ignoring it from republicans. Everything they want has been tried, failed miserably and done incredible damage to real people's lives. See: The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too by J.K. Galbraith or America: What Went Wrong? by Barlett and Steele for some of the grisly details.

Here's my two cents, for what it is worth. Direct action is rarely effective, take the anti-war protests. If millions of people in this country couldn't stop a war of conquest by protesting, why the hell should we take 450k whining, selfish, failed yuppies seriously? Democrats who cave to this nonsense do deserve to be voted out, this country faces too many real problems to be distracted by a statistically insignificant, if loud, opposition group. Ignore this manifesto and the its supporters, ignore the obstructionist opposition party that simply wants to seize back power by any means neccessary and remember that the majority wants government of, for, and by the people.

Extinction bursts of medium importance

Of all the eliminationist rhetoric emenating from the xenophobic true believers, I think their unqualified belief in a sweeping midterm victory for, um, not Democrats is one of the more interesting. Talk of pushing the "libruls" into the sea and "all good Americans hate Democrats" or my favorite of the Americans are having a liberal agenda pushed down their throats and they will make you pay variety. Imagine my suprize to see that Teabaggers are even less likely to support republicans that side with wall street, see here for more detail.

So, we have the usual balancing act of money vs. votes. Wall street has been sending more of their increasing "campaign contributions" and lobbying funds to Democrats, there are fluctuations of course, but generally an upward trend since Bill Clinton proved he could be an efficient manager of fiscal policy. People voted for Democrats in the last two elections with many hopes of changes, but I don't think getting more cozy with big banks was one of them.

Not to be outdone, the lazy republicans who have done nothing for the last year but collect paychecks and screech about socialism and takeovers by a black man, seem to be thinking that if they just continue their obstructionism as usual it will not be construed by the pitchfork crowd as supporting wall st. Will it work? Depends I guess on the actual savvy of teabags. Logic, common sense and even consistancy seems to bounce off their entrenched ideological frames. So McConnell and the other do-nothings may get away with it. Certainly doesn't have to though, teabags, like most angry Americans, have a subconscious understanding that nobody in Washington really speaks for them. This is evident in their inconsistant demands and paranoia about the government.

My advice to Democrats, be bold! Make the financial reform bill as strong as you can, big finance is already showering the lunatics that allowed them to crash the economy not 3 years ago with money. What have you got to lose now? The silent majority will support reregulation and even the outspoken teabags will be forced to confront and reconcile their libertarianism with the desire not to be crushed by big money. Most are probably disciplined enough to overcome this brush with reality, but as with anytime true believers are faced with doublethink it causes anxiety. So, we on the left will get some level of reregulation, bringing us closer to the New Deal society that worked pretty darn well for 40 years, and deflate the "enthusiasm gap" a little. And just as with the health care reform law, "they will like us when we win."

I love the intertubes!

So I just figured out a convenient way to link books and stuff from Amazon.com to my little piece of the internet. It is cool, since I've ordered and read quite a few from them lately and have wanted an easy way to recommend them, if I could make a few pennies from something I wanted to do in the first place so much the better. And it will make a "further reading" page on the website I'm building about the history of armor that much easier to create.

Of course, my first recommendation is to check your local library for any titles I recommend. Not simply because the librarians I know will be happy, but because that is what the library is for. That said, many people I know would rather buy a copy and not have to return it by a certain date. Also, many of my grad student peers (myself included) like to take notes in the margins and highlight important areas, which is frowned upon with library books.

So just to try it out, I wanted to post a quick couple links to books I've gotten a lot out of lately.

Wow, that works pretty nicely :) These are three great books by history minded political commentators that explain a lot of how the world works today. I have read them all (several times in some cases) and highly recommend them.

My other blog, new deals and great societies, was intended to be a nonpartisan educational tool for all the people I know who want to understand more about politics but maybe were uncomfortable asking. That hasn't worked out so well, but hopefully with this new tool I could get back to it.

Anyway, I will try to post a review for each of these books and hopefully many more in the near future.

Cheerio and happy learning!

Would it make any difference?

Just found out I have a "fan/troll/critic" now. Exciting since I don't think anyone reads this but depressing as well. Peter's comments make it pretty clear that even college educated cons aren't interested in debate or constructive dialogue. They're right and if you don't believe what they tell you (anecdotally or superficially, one word Pete, "sources") or live the way you are "supposed" to then you deserve personal, ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated invective. In other words, you are scum and your personal life is fair game. One little piece of proof that there can be no bipartisanship, no cooperation between parties. Selfish, privileged preppies just need to be defeated. They have no sympathy or understanding of the larger society, so why/how could anyone who does have those values work with them? It's just "I got mine and blame yourself if life shits on you."

My title here is just reference to the details about me in my profile. Since Peter obviously doesn't remember me from high school and well, obviously people change a lot in 15 years, he just used what I wrote against me. It has been eating me up a little, but does show just how sexist, vulgar, and coarse the other side really is. Now, what I mean is, if it was a 33 year old woman staying home with her new baby and going back to school for an advanced degree, it's a good bet that even the hardest-hearted corporate swine would say "good for you." Nor would they consider her "unemployed" because let me tell you, being a stay at home parent is more than a full-time job. But since men are "supposed" to be the breadwinner and are ridiculed if they elect to stay home, it is just fine for this fucking maggot to let loose this kind of bullshit.

Vulgar, and therefore also ignorant and closed-minded, because you have to be an "idiot" as he later accuses me of, to think that the class-warriors' wrecking of the economy has left all men able to get a comfy, privileged job sucking the teat of their liege's largesse. Truth is, I have plenty of personal knowledge and experience of how corporate America functions. And I fucking hate it! All the backstabbing, posturing, layoffs, outsourcing, reneging on contracts, and generally treating Americans like sheep to be shorn. I have had enough of that! Three times in seven years I was laid off involuntarily (i.e. I did not do anything to "deserve" it) from companies that also had "generous" owners, but my life was still thrown into chaos because of it. Yes, I elected to withdraw from the rat-race and hopefully never return, corporate America does nothing but burn you at both ends and then discard you when they can't "use" you any more.

Peter, you've obviously never experienced hardship in your entire preppy life have you? Let me make some equally unsubstantiated speculations about your "personal choices." You slouched your way through high school, went to college on mommy and daddy's dime, married your high school sweetheart who stood by you without fail, and got a slot in some corporation due to family or other social connections, able to live the "American Dream" that is so out of reach for the majority of Americans these days, never having to make hard choices or sacrifices that people like me have had to make.

Coarse, because you really have to be delusional and living in some social darwinist fantasy to expect anyone who has worked for a living to feel sorry for someone who inherited enough money to buy 10 restaurants. We should all be so lucky, especially since Wisconsin Hospitality Group, who you work for and whose owner you're so melodramatically praising for his generousity, canned a friend of mine after a decade of service. My friend worked for him since he was 16 and was so loyal, dedicated, and hard-working that he rose to the position of general manager by the time he was 20. Where's the sympathy for my friend and his 3 kids?

Social Darwinism is pretty apt here, since that ideology holds that the poor are poor by nature, and inherited wealth needs to be subsidized and protected, because by nature again they are society's winners and therefore society should bend over backwards to reward and encourage their greed while the poor should just go die somewhere. Then the privileged wonder why the people left for dead might some day feel justified in robbing you or invading your privileged "gated communities" like the no-intersection, MacMansion cul-de-sacs that have replaced working-class Levittown style suburbs. "Cut the school budget, we need more cops!"

Let me tell you, while your liege got "raped" by the estate tax (gosh wouldn't it be wonderful to inherit enough money to have to pay that? Only about 2% of people ever do) my grandparents had all of their property confiscated to pay for their nursing home care, so my parents inherited nothing. A lifetime of hard work, frugal saving, and paying taxes for what?!? This is the ending that is in store for most of us, all to avoid the "socialism" of every other advanced nation, single-payer health care. I know it would be beyond your capacity to contemplate how much your beloved liege would gain by not having to offer "self-insurance" and expend precious company HR time to administer the minefield of private health insurance.

You also had the impressive lack of tact to bring up my military service, yes while you were getting wasted at frat parties I was changing track in the Kentucky clay, performing 24 hour guard-duty, and pulling 20 days a month in the field. If you had served your country you would know that the military isn't about "sacrificing the few to save the many" it is "watch your buddy's back" and "work as a team." You are not a selfish individual in the Army, you are part of something greater than yourself and you sacrifice your own comfort and happiness for your buddies. Not because the big, bad, government or *gasp* the Democrats forced you to, but because we're all in this together!

A House Divided, Again

There were many points of view during the "popular sovereignty" debate of course, and as is true today, the majority of Americans were too busy just trying to live their lives to become actively involved. Just as movement conservatives today are always busy pushing the boundaries of corporate power, through regressive tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and so on, the slave power constantly pushed the limits of the "peculiar institution" beyond its base in the South. "Popular sovereignty" was the brainchild of Stephen Douglas and he used it to further the agenda of Democratic power brokers who had a vested interest in extending their holdings into the territory conquered from Mexico by establishing a precedent in the Louisiana territory. If "popular sovereignty" could overturn the law and compromise of 1820 then it could be forced upon any territory, thereby extending the slave power's hold over American political life. This coincided with a propaganda offensive by Southerners to reframe slavery as a "positive good."



Mr. Blankley is just like one of those apologists, endlessly warning of the horrors that await us if our elected government defies the wishes of the "slave power."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A House Divided, Again

I am a graduate student in history and have studied the Civil War era extensively. Everytime I read a piece of revisionist garbage like this I am reminded of why, even if I can only ever reach a handful of people, I study history and try not to allow our history to be corrupted like this.



During the era mr. blankley is talking about, there was a pervasive belief that a "slave power conspiracy" was wielding tremendous power behind the scenes. It was never a belief held by the majority of Americans but extended well beyond the abolitionists. You must really play fast and loose with the facts to believe that a modest reexertion of authority by the elected government over our own slave power, that is corporate power, is somehow "socialist" and viciously opposed by the majority.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost