Esque

Home in Dallas went to market Thursday at $375,000 and had best and final last night, 24 hours later. I'm in Houston and didn't have a chance to see it, but still put an offer in for $400,000 cash with a flexible close (10 days or seller discretion). Also broke most of the other options the seller's way and told the agent I don't have representation, so they could collect the full fee. Got a call back last night saying they had 14 offers in 24 hours and I wasn't even top three, so was letting me know I'm out. I was able to confirm they have multiple bids above $425,000 with waiving inspections, appraisals, etc. She expects the home will end up at $450,000. That is crazy. Glad I played around with it just to see how crazy the market really is, but I see renting a home in my future.

Something is seriously wrong in this housing market. We began looking for homes in Dallas and some of the numbers are crazy. A home that was purchased for $240,000 in 2014 went to market at $380,000. They took it off the market after a few days and now put it back on (and is contingent within two days) at $420,000. I can't figure out what exactly is going on, but will probably end up renting a single-family home for a year or two.

Does SH have a Discord for games?

This is the comedy that I come to SB for.

I didn't realize Shaggy had become this sensitive over the last few years. I wasn't even advocating one position or the other, rather just presenting how I understand how different people could have different opinions and thus positions. For what it is worth, I don't believe the federal government should be bailing out corporate entities to the extent they have. The equity holders should take the bath and reset shareholder equity to the bondholders, even if that is a messy process. But we should also be responsible and differentiate debt versus grants. The federal government has the (bad) habit of over lending to those that have made poor decisions. What is being contemplated here are large scale grants, which has not been on the table until very recently and even then limited through the PPP program.

This has to be conjecture given there is no data and even then, any data presented would be guessing at best. However, I understand the thought exercise IF (and that is a big IF) you already own assets. I could understand a scenario in which households with student debt are more likely to put off major life events that drive essential goods consumerism. Therefore, if you forgive their debt they are more likely to save up a down payment sooner, which means they can purchase a home sooner, which means they feel stable enough to get married sooner, and most importantly, have children sooner. This in turn drives incremental consumerism and drives earnings, and thus dividends and asset prices. The counter argument is the other group, who are not already substantial asset owners. For example, if you're now 30 and you spent 22 - 26 working and paying your debt, 27 - 29 saving and investing some and now are well positioned are 30 to begin investing meaningful, this would seem extremely unfavorable for you. This is going to have to be paid for somehow, which likely means a combination of increasing taxes and printing money, which is a negative real return. That's not the best position for this group. Also, I expect the first group would feel differently if it was more clear we were simply going to print this money out of thin air and devalue the currency, creating a material negative real return on current assets.

The federal government now expects to lose over $435 billion from the federal student loan program. By comparison, private lenders lost $550 billion during the 2009 GFC. I'm at a loss for words on how to express my frustrations with the federal government's spending and ineptitude at this time. Use your imagination. https://www.wsj.com/articles/student-loan-losses-seen-costing-u-s-more-than-400-billion-11605963600?mod=hp_lead_pos1

That was a bad ass commercial from Amazon. "The Show Must Go On."

If you'd like to tumble further down the rabbit hole, spend some time looking into the World Class assets. As an example, World Class Holdings owned about 200 AC of Property located at 700 Bunton, Kyle, TX under WC KYLE 200 LP. The Property was deeded over to a RPC KYLE LLC in December 2019, after the FBI raid. RPC KYLE LLC is registered to a Mr. Ariah Rastegar. Ariah Rastegar is good friends with Nate Paul. Perhaps there's too many dots being connected here, but if you watch over the assets, it looks like Nate has been executing related party (or at least a non-arms length) transactions. There's only so much public information available about these transactions, unfortunately. Only the parties involved would know the exact details, but I'm surprised he can operate in this manner given the pending investigation. I think the reality is there are a number of bad actors / Sponsors in Texas real estate that need to be flushed out. So will be interesting to see how this progresses.

Haha, yeah. I've been busy the last few years. I guess I've found myself with too much time on my hands with the pandemic. Long post is long.

On the contrary, I think the 2020 elections were a huge loss for Democrats in the House. The practical operations of the House are much more nuanced than the Senate, with Representatives being much more likely to break away from their party on any given, individual issue. The Democrats gain of 41 seats was huge, but so is their loss of 7 to 10 seats two years later. It will make it that much more difficult for them to pass legislation and move it to the Senate. The increased prevalence of this perspective is deeply concerning to me. Not all forms of government and created equal. I would also argue strongly against the idea that local governments can pass more policy without scrutiny. On the contrary, there is more visibility and transparency at the local government level and I would argue a lot more friction to do what is best for that community. My favorite example is school districts, which are just another form of government. I think smaller, local school districts operate better than these large school districts, even when accounting for tax revenue. Also, would you have this same opinion if the GOP swept all three branches of government this year? Or would you be arguing the other case? Agreed with everything else you said. I just have no faith that the representatives today are going to work together for a hard-fought compromise (both sides being too stuck in their positions), unless there is something that is absolutely pressing and there is wide approval. As an example, I don't want taxes raised. However, I think we need to given the current operating environment and the resulting debt. But I also think we need to manage expenses as well. Ideally, I'd love to see both happen. But I think both sides are too stuck in their position (Republicans not wanting to raise taxes, Democrats not wanting to cut spending) to see any movement. Right-leaning independent sounds about right for me. Basically agree with 99% of what you are saying. This is sort of my position now. But I think both sides need to come together to pass meaningful legislation. I don't think the answer is centralized government into one party's hands, whether that's Republicans or Democrats. Agreed, but once again - I have little to no faith in either side working together to address these issues meaningfully and compromising for the betterment of all. I don't know. Just my two cents. It will be interesting to see how things play out over the next two years. I am hoping Biden can provide stability and decrease some of the social unrest. I am also hoping (perhaps beyond hope) that Trump does the right thing and concedes sooner rather than later and gives some unifying signal to the country and those that support him.

I suppose I meant Republicans maintaining control of the Senate is a good thing in so far as they will be a check against policy that would otherwise not have wide sweeping approval. As I mentioned, I am not a fan of centralized government and the increasing allocation of power into the federal government. I would rather have power allocated at the local and state levels, personally. So this is all from my personal perspective, more than anything else.

This has been one of the most interesting political events I've seen in my life, mainly driven by the polarization of the general population. Overall, I think the outcome was likely the best for the nation in that the executive branch has a less dividing leader, the Republicans maintained control of the Senate and the Republicans took a number of seats in the House. Thus, as someone that is not a fan of the federal government in general, the government is positioned to be grid locked. How are those that voted for Biden viewing the results of the Senate and the House, and the practical implications of a split government? I'd imagine you'd have to be looking forward to 2022 and mid-term elections, in hopes of taking these back? I think the Democrats have been dealt a tough hand, despite winning the Presidency. We're in the midst of a global pandemic and a global recession and I don't expect there to be much reaching across the aisle, unless it's overwhelming supported by the general population, i.e. there will be more fiscal stimulus, but it will be closer to $1.6 - $1.8T, not $3.0 - $3.1T. Others thoughts?

I got home late last night from seeing the movie and will echo similar sentiments in that the movie was good, not great. It had its moments, but left a lot to be desired. With that being said, Murfdogg21's question/s actually has an interesting answer if you're a fan of the Star Wars EU. While the first few points are rather fundamental and may even seem rhetorical, they are important to lay out before answering your questions. Background: The Force is the underlying connection between all living things, constantly seeking to find a balance. There are individuals born 'Force sensitive' in that they have a better innate understanding of The Force. These individuals have the capabilities to manipulate The Force at their discretion. Ultimately, The Force runs on a spectrum, but we often seek to simplify this spectrum as good versus evil, light versus dark, and etc. In reality, There is a lot more grey area. The Jedi and Sith Order are organizations with a specific set of values and beliefs with regards to The Force. This is why they are often referred to as 'ancient religions' in the Star Wars EU, by non-Force believing individuals. A Jedi or Sith is just an individual that receives specialized training to enhance their capabilities. However, these individuals can transition throughout their life as they move across this grey spectrum. A good example in the movies is Ben Solo the Jedi transitioning to Kylo Ren the Sith and finally back to Ben Solo the Jedi. The Rule of Two: In the Star Wars EU, the Sith Order was much more similar to the Jedi Order from Episodes I, II and III. There were many, many Sith. However, a key difference was the large amount of internal conflict among the Sith, as each Sith sought power, knowledge, pride, and etc. A Jedi turned Sith named Darth Revan observed that the Jedi were organized as a group with a focused purpose and thus would always be stronger than the Sith while the internal fighting persisted. Philosophically he decided the best way for the Sith to gain power was to eliminate other Siths and concentrate their power in less individuals. Remember that The Force seeks balance and therefore if there are 100 Jedi with a power of 1 and 100 Sith with a power of 1, but 90 Sith die, the remaining Sith have increased capabilities with a power of 10 - or at least in theory. He felt this would help prevent internal conflict as would make it easier to unite the Sith Order into a common goal of dominance. Darth Revan never actually put this into practice, but left his philosophy behind at the Sith Temple. Fast forward 1,000 years and nothing changed. The internal conflict within the Sith Order had grown as a whole the Order was weakening from the external (Jedi) and internal (Sith) conflict. Darth Bane studies Darth Revan's teachings and reaches similar conclusions, that the Sith Order will slowly destroy itself. He refines Darth Revan's beliefs and initiates a Sith purge, establishing a "Rule of 2," whereby there would only be a Sith master and apprentice at any given time, significantly magnifying each's power. After the purge, Darth Bane takes on an apprentice, Darth Zannah and thus the Rule of 2 begins in full. From here on out, you more or less know the rest. Darth Plagueis was mater to Darth Sidius, and Darth Sidius to Darth Vader. With Vader's death, Sidius needed a new apprentice - which was supposed to be Rey. If Rey struck down Sidius in an act of revenge or hatred, she would inherit the concentrated power of the dark side. Hence, her vision was of herself and Kylo Ren joining forces to lead the Sith Order, which was Sidius' end goal. But she didn't, she choose the light. At the end when she kills him, it's as a Jedi and as an act of defense of the people fighting for their freedom. I thought that part of the movie was actually great. Although I understand 99% of people don't know what's going on because this is knowledge you would need from the Star Wars EU and therefore if you were just watching the movies, you wouldn't understand what the hell was happening. All of this also means that the Sith aren't gone, they're just gone for now. The Force seeks balance and therefore there will be those born that will seek out the dark side and will look to re-establish the Sith Order. Hence, the story is never done and there's an infinite universe to make movies on. The Star Wars EU is already extremely detailed and thus those were be interesting to see in the theater.

I have three 12-pack available for purchase / trade. Just looking to downsize / diversify my collection.

Behold - My first five-year set of Goose Island BCBS. Will have this in the line-up every year from here on out.