Difference HG50 and HG62 MTB cassettes?

On 2016-05-12 10:54, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 12 May 2016
07:40:02 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-05-11 17:16, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:25:52 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 18:40, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 08:09:55 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 19:08, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2016 09:56:41 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-08 19:02, John B. wrote:

[...]


Back in the old days a "gym" was a barn with a few iron bars and
weights and probably some dumb bells. Add in the cost of the full
length mirrors and probably a shower and it was pretty cheap to put
together.


Now they are ritzy places with TVs, soothing music and luxury car
parking out front.

My impression is that is what the customer wants. Thus, assuming that
he/she/it has money, they gets it.


Sure. My point is that this is how thoughts like "Oh, $16 is nothing"
come about. And this is how scores of people go deep into debt in the
US. It's essentially financial carelessness that starts small and then
swallows everything.

Well, I still believe that $16 is almost literally "pocket change" but
your point about people going into debt is certainly true and of
course the credit card companies encourage it.


$16 is small money these days but on an MTB you'd easily run through
half a dozen pad sets per year. That's $80. Add in all those other
"pocket change" items and you have a serious chunk of money that would
be much better applied reducing the mortgage or something like that.


In essence then you are voluntarily engaging in an activity that you
know results in extra wear on your bicycle and then complaining about
it. The solution is simple - ride on the roads :-)


My MTB doesn't have to suffer too differently from my SUV which has seen
its fair share of rough turf. For me such use is normal an must be
withstood. Motor vehicles do that much better than bicycles because
their parts are generally of a better price/performance ratio.

It's got nothing whatever to do with price/performance ratio, and
everything to do with power/weight ratio.


Sure it does. It is not right to charge $16 for a pair of tiny
coin-sized brake pads when the same money buys beefy motor vehicle pads
at more than ten times the size.


... With the availability of so
much horsepower, it is possible to massively over-engineer parts so
that they can withstand years of tender, loving abuse.
It's been pointed out to you many times that if the bicycle was
engineered to the same level, you wouldn't be able to move it without
power assistance.
Pick up a small off-road motorcycle with a blown engine for peanuts,
ideally one with a single cradle frame for ease of modification.
Weld on a bottom bracket and fit pedals and a chainwheel to match the
motorcycle sprocket. You'll have to get the suspension softened to
take account of the lack of engine weight. Then you'd have what you
are wanting. Do let us know how you get on, and if the finished
design is actually usable.


As I have written before some changes to the MTB (and also road bike)
have already gone in that direction, and successfully so. Each tube in
my MTB weighs around 1-1/2lbs, motorcycle-strength. Plus liner. Plus
tube sleeve over the liner. Now I also found a tire which supposedly has
the tread surface as well as some of the sidewall in a compound similar
to motorcycle tires. Weighs over 2lbs or about 30-40% more than the
usual flimsy stuff. Result: No more flats, no more pumping every week.

A long time ago I found brake pads similar to what motor vehicles use,
ceramic-based and best of all only $3/pair from Asia. Unfortunately they
have become unobtanium now and I could bite myself that I didn't do a
hoarding purchase of several dozen. Because they are the best and
longest-lasting pads I ever had on it.

The MTB also got a 60Wh battery and commensurate lighting. That is a bit
overkill but will help when I add a stereo and drink cooler :-)

Long story short the MTB now weighs close to 40lbs and the number of
breakdowns is greatly reduced.



Years ago I used to go to the bank on pay day; deposit my check and
walk across the room to the "credit card" counter and write a check to
pay off my credit card charges.

One day the guy at the credit card counter says, "You know, you don't
have to pay the whole thing each month, you can just pay part". I
replied that "according to the credit card contract I will be billed
at one month intervals and if I pay the charges within one month of
receiving the bill there was no interest, so I essentially get a free
loan for two months. The guy said, "Yes, some people understand that."


Bingo. Most people understand that but the majority of them does not
have the discipline to live withing their means. They see something,
they want to have it, and the credit card makes that sort of behavior
"easy".

But self reliance, or perhaps self discipline, is supposed to be a
mark of maturity.


It is my firm opinion that the majority of people in countries like the
US are not really mature when it comes to finances. And many never
really will be.

In other countries I've seen or lived in such maturity was often forced
by the unavailability of such wanton credit offers. For example, in the
Netherlands or Germany we could not buy a new sofa and start the
payments on it two years later. Here people can.

And here, and people have got themselves in the same mess.
I once used a "buy now, pay later" deal, but had a savings account
with more than the value of the item already in it, which I
"earmarked" as already spent. So I got the interest on the savings
over the loan period instead of them - at the time that meant an
effective 10% discount, as that was how much interest I earned in that
period (it was a while ago, when interest rates were higher).
The sad fact is that most people aren't financially astute enough to
use such schemes sensibly.


Yes. Most people can only think from here to the next paycheck. If that.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

John B. wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 19:06, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:44:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 18:46, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:51:10 +1000, James
wrote:

On 09/05/16 21:03, John B. wrote:


Out of curiosity do you pay for incoming calls in Australia? We don't
here but in Singapore they pay for both sides of the conversation.


No, only outgoing. Only exception would be if you accepted a reverse
charges call

Which seems the fair way to charge as, if I remember, a "land line"
has no charge at all for local calls :-)


This has pitfalls. Example Germany: Cell phone users are not charged for
incoming calls but callers are usually charged exorbitant rates per
minute. Those with limited funds do this exactly once. Then they'll say
to the guy who thought his dropping the landline was oh so smart "Sorry,
man, our last chat cost me almost 10 Euros so I can't call you anymore".

I currently pay 0.35 cents (in U.S. terms) a minute.


On the cell phone? That's impossible in the US unless you have a flat
rate deal which comes with high monthly fees.

Ah, but you are in the land of opportunity :-)

When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.

does depend on who you have a contract with, I get to use my contract
data/minutes/texts for less than a coffee/pint a day.

a long holiday to australia using my phone for calls, data for it's self
and as connection for laptop, cost about the same as a round of drinks!

Roger Merriman

On 2016-05-12 14:35, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 19:06, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:44:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 18:46, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:51:10 +1000, James
wrote:

On 09/05/16 21:03, John B. wrote:


Out of curiosity do you pay for incoming calls in Australia? We don't
here but in Singapore they pay for both sides of the conversation.


No, only outgoing. Only exception would be if you accepted a reverse
charges call

Which seems the fair way to charge as, if I remember, a "land line"
has no charge at all for local calls :-)


This has pitfalls. Example Germany: Cell phone users are not charged for
incoming calls but callers are usually charged exorbitant rates per
minute. Those with limited funds do this exactly once. Then they'll say
to the guy who thought his dropping the landline was oh so smart "Sorry,
man, our last chat cost me almost 10 Euros so I can't call you anymore".

I currently pay 0.35 cents (in U.S. terms) a minute.


On the cell phone? That's impossible in the US unless you have a flat
rate deal which comes with high monthly fees.

Ah, but you are in the land of opportunity :-)

When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.

does depend on who you have a contract with, I get to use my contract
data/minutes/texts for less than a coffee/pint a day.


Sounds pricey.


a long holiday to australia using my phone for calls, data for it's self
and as connection for laptop, cost about the same as a round of drinks!


That probably depends on whether it is a round of Fraser Briggs from
Aldi or a round of Pommery :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg wrote:

On 2016-05-12 14:35, Roger Merriman wrote:
John B. wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 19:06, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:44:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 18:46, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:51:10 +1000, James
wrote:

On 09/05/16 21:03, John B. wrote:


Out of curiosity do you pay for incoming calls in Australia? We don't
here but in Singapore they pay for both sides of the conversation.


No, only outgoing. Only exception would be if you accepted a reverse
charges call

Which seems the fair way to charge as, if I remember, a "land line"
has no charge at all for local calls :-)


This has pitfalls. Example Germany: Cell phone users are not charged for
incoming calls but callers are usually charged exorbitant rates per
minute. Those with limited funds do this exactly once. Then they'll say
to the guy who thought his dropping the landline was oh so smart "Sorry,
man, our last chat cost me almost 10 Euros so I can't call you anymore".

I currently pay 0.35 cents (in U.S. terms) a minute.


On the cell phone? That's impossible in the US unless you have a flat
rate deal which comes with high monthly fees.

Ah, but you are in the land of opportunity :-)

When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.

does depend on who you have a contract with, I get to use my contract
data/minutes/texts for less than a coffee/pint a day.


Sounds pricey.

not at all £3 and the rest of the day I'm using data/minutes/texts from
my plan clearly if all you do is one day send a text, then that is a
expensive text. but if you use the phone as per normal, it makes a
fairly good deal since those minutes/texts/data is paid for already.


a long holiday to australia using my phone for calls, data for it's self
and as connection for laptop, cost about the same as a round of drinks!


That probably depends on whether it is a round of Fraser Briggs from
Aldi or a round of Pommery :-)

indeed.

Roger Merriman

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:29:17 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 17:13, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 19:06, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:44:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 18:46, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:51:10 +1000, James
wrote:

On 09/05/16 21:03, John B. wrote:


Out of curiosity do you pay for incoming calls in Australia? We don't
here but in Singapore they pay for both sides of the conversation.


No, only outgoing. Only exception would be if you accepted a reverse
charges call

Which seems the fair way to charge as, if I remember, a "land line"
has no charge at all for local calls :-)


This has pitfalls. Example Germany: Cell phone users are not charged for
incoming calls but callers are usually charged exorbitant rates per
minute. Those with limited funds do this exactly once. Then they'll say
to the guy who thought his dropping the landline was oh so smart "Sorry,
man, our last chat cost me almost 10 Euros so I can't call you anymore".

I currently pay 0.35 cents (in U.S. terms) a minute.


On the cell phone? That's impossible in the US unless you have a flat
rate deal which comes with high monthly fees.

Ah, but you are in the land of opportunity :-)


Not when it comes to phone systems and especially rates. Even our
Internet connections are not quite up to par on average with numerous
other countries.


When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.


You are probably retired. In business that can be different. Like
calling a destination overseas from the airport before your flight. Or
having to answer an urgent request while riding your bike. The engineer
at the other end may be stuck at a factory site overseas and in
immediate need of your assistance.

I am retired now but when I was working I didn't call anyone from the
airport. Our Branch Offices took care of those kind of things.

As for engineer stuck at factory site, we hired competent engineers
:-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:33:44 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 17:33, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:37:29 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 10:19, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 11 May 2016
09:25:52 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-05-10 18:40, John B. wrote:

[...]


Years ago I used to go to the bank on pay day; deposit my check and
walk across the room to the "credit card" counter and write a check to
pay off my credit card charges.

One day the guy at the credit card counter says, "You know, you don't
have to pay the whole thing each month, you can just pay part". I
replied that "according to the credit card contract I will be billed
at one month intervals and if I pay the charges within one month of
receiving the bill there was no interest, so I essentially get a free
loan for two months. The guy said, "Yes, some people understand that."


Bingo. Most people understand that but the majority of them does not
have the discipline to live withing their means. They see something,
they want to have it, and the credit card makes that sort of behavior
"easy".

Or they set up their affairs at a time when times are good, then get
hit with redundancy or illness, so the first bill to not get paid is
the one you don't HAVE to - and then the interest starts piling up.

It's what the banks bet on when they offer those terms.


A more dangerous scenario is that offer "Get your new couch tomorrow but
don't start payments until 2018!". Next year they forget about it, then
Januray 2018 rolls around and WHAMBAM.

The topper though were adjustable rate mortgages which crippled the
world economy. I predicted that in 2006 and was laughed at. Amongst
others by real estate professionals who then lost their own home in the
wake. At that point I lost faith in the competence of central bank
presidents because they should have seen it coming much earlier than I
did yet they did not see it.


To be honest, I simply can't have much sympathy for someone who
doesn't "read the small print". There is nothing wrong with
adjustable rate borrowing, in fact it may be advantageous in some
instances.

The problem you describe had very little, if anything, to do with the
form of the mortgage. What was the problem was people entering into
agreements that they simply could not afford, and when they got bit
they rationalized it away by saying, "Oh! The banks made me do it",
rather then telling the truth and saying, "Oh! I was stupid".


The main problem was much deeper than that. People, to my surprise even
very smart financial and other professionals, were of the firm opinion
that the real estate market from here on could only go in one direction:
Up. So they agreed to mortgages where either the rate adjusted to some
exorbitantly high percentage in x years or a balloon payment came due in
x years. That was to be supposedly "easily handled" because the property
would be worth much more by then versus at purchase. Then one fine day
... *POOF*

I would have to argue as I worked with a fairly astute bloke who
invested his money by buying houses for rental. I remember, long
before the actual crash, his agent, in California, recommending that
he stop buying houses as the market was overheated.

And anyone who actually believes that "the market can't go down" is
ignoring history.The first big financial crash I find recorded was in
1623 and they have been continuing at an average of every eight years
ever since.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 11:52:20 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-12 10:54, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 12 May 2016
07:40:02 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-05-11 17:16, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:25:52 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 18:40, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 08:09:55 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 19:08, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 09 May 2016 09:56:41 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-08 19:02, John B. wrote:

[...]


Back in the old days a "gym" was a barn with a few iron bars and
weights and probably some dumb bells. Add in the cost of the full
length mirrors and probably a shower and it was pretty cheap to put
together.


Now they are ritzy places with TVs, soothing music and luxury car
parking out front.

My impression is that is what the customer wants. Thus, assuming that
he/she/it has money, they gets it.


Sure. My point is that this is how thoughts like "Oh, $16 is nothing"
come about. And this is how scores of people go deep into debt in the
US. It's essentially financial carelessness that starts small and then
swallows everything.

Well, I still believe that $16 is almost literally "pocket change" but
your point about people going into debt is certainly true and of
course the credit card companies encourage it.


$16 is small money these days but on an MTB you'd easily run through
half a dozen pad sets per year. That's $80. Add in all those other
"pocket change" items and you have a serious chunk of money that would
be much better applied reducing the mortgage or something like that.


In essence then you are voluntarily engaging in an activity that you
know results in extra wear on your bicycle and then complaining about
it. The solution is simple - ride on the roads :-)


My MTB doesn't have to suffer too differently from my SUV which has seen
its fair share of rough turf. For me such use is normal an must be
withstood. Motor vehicles do that much better than bicycles because
their parts are generally of a better price/performance ratio.

It's got nothing whatever to do with price/performance ratio, and
everything to do with power/weight ratio.


Sure it does. It is not right to charge $16 for a pair of tiny
coin-sized brake pads when the same money buys beefy motor vehicle pads
at more than ten times the size.

You seem uninformed about how products are priced. Cost of materials
and manufacturing costs is only the first tier of costing an item. The
really important factor is "How Much Will they Pay?" and as long as
you and your mates continue to pay $16 for a set of pads that will
continue to be priced at that figure.

This, by the way, was the basis for the "cost plus" contracts. The
buyer doesn't have to worry about how much cushion is built in as he
pays the actual, documented cost plus a fixed markup.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 22:35:10 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

John B. wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-10 19:06, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 16:44:36 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-09 18:46, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 06:51:10 +1000, James
wrote:

On 09/05/16 21:03, John B. wrote:


Out of curiosity do you pay for incoming calls in Australia? We don't
here but in Singapore they pay for both sides of the conversation.


No, only outgoing. Only exception would be if you accepted a reverse
charges call

Which seems the fair way to charge as, if I remember, a "land line"
has no charge at all for local calls :-)


This has pitfalls. Example Germany: Cell phone users are not charged for
incoming calls but callers are usually charged exorbitant rates per
minute. Those with limited funds do this exactly once. Then they'll say
to the guy who thought his dropping the landline was oh so smart "Sorry,
man, our last chat cost me almost 10 Euros so I can't call you anymore".

I currently pay 0.35 cents (in U.S. terms) a minute.


On the cell phone? That's impossible in the US unless you have a flat
rate deal which comes with high monthly fees.

Ah, but you are in the land of opportunity :-)

When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.

does depend on who you have a contract with, I get to use my contract
data/minutes/texts for less than a coffee/pint a day.

a long holiday to australia using my phone for calls, data for it's self
and as connection for laptop, cost about the same as a round of drinks!

Roger Merriman

I don't think Jorge buys a "round of drinks" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 2016-05-12 19:30, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:29:17 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 17:13, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:13:16 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

[...]


When I call Germany from here in the US it costs me 2.5 cents (USD) if
it's a land line over there. If it is a cellular recipient my cost
increases tenfold to 25 cents. Therefore, one tends to prefer not to
call cell phones over in Europe or at least keep the chat short.

I don't make international calls on a hand phone. Nor do I "roam"
using a hand phone. That is simply foolishness. If I visit a foreign
country I buy a SIM card issued by the local phone company and use
that. If you want to contact "home base" send a text message.


You are probably retired. In business that can be different. Like
calling a destination overseas from the airport before your flight. Or
having to answer an urgent request while riding your bike. The engineer
at the other end may be stuck at a factory site overseas and in
immediate need of your assistance.

I am retired now but when I was working I didn't call anyone from the
airport. Our Branch Offices took care of those kind of things.


I prefer direct communication links, not via an office.


As for engineer stuck at factory site, we hired competent engineers
:-)


A competent engineer will realize when he or she has reached a limit and
where it would be prudent to consult another engineer who specializes in
situations like the one at hand. One of my specialties is
electro-magnetic interference (EMI) and when that has a hardcore effect
on analog circuitry there aren't many people who know this stuff well
enough to solve a nasty case. Getting on the phone right away is smart
because a competent engineer will not unnecessarily leave a client in an
expensive production line-stop situation.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-05-12 19:44, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:33:44 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 17:33, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:37:29 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2016-05-11 10:19, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 11 May 2016
09:25:52 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-05-10 18:40, John B. wrote:

[...]


Years ago I used to go to the bank on pay day; deposit my check and
walk across the room to the "credit card" counter and write a check to
pay off my credit card charges.

One day the guy at the credit card counter says, "You know, you don't
have to pay the whole thing each month, you can just pay part". I
replied that "according to the credit card contract I will be billed
at one month intervals and if I pay the charges within one month of
receiving the bill there was no interest, so I essentially get a free
loan for two months. The guy said, "Yes, some people understand that."


Bingo. Most people understand that but the majority of them does not
have the discipline to live withing their means. They see something,
they want to have it, and the credit card makes that sort of behavior
"easy".

Or they set up their affairs at a time when times are good, then get
hit with redundancy or illness, so the first bill to not get paid is
the one you don't HAVE to - and then the interest starts piling up.

It's what the banks bet on when they offer those terms.


A more dangerous scenario is that offer "Get your new couch tomorrow but
don't start payments until 2018!". Next year they forget about it, then
Januray 2018 rolls around and WHAMBAM.

The topper though were adjustable rate mortgages which crippled the
world economy. I predicted that in 2006 and was laughed at. Amongst
others by real estate professionals who then lost their own home in the
wake. At that point I lost faith in the competence of central bank
presidents because they should have seen it coming much earlier than I
did yet they did not see it.


To be honest, I simply can't have much sympathy for someone who
doesn't "read the small print". There is nothing wrong with
adjustable rate borrowing, in fact it may be advantageous in some
instances.

The problem you describe had very little, if anything, to do with the
form of the mortgage. What was the problem was people entering into
agreements that they simply could not afford, and when they got bit
they rationalized it away by saying, "Oh! The banks made me do it",
rather then telling the truth and saying, "Oh! I was stupid".


The main problem was much deeper than that. People, to my surprise even
very smart financial and other professionals, were of the firm opinion
that the real estate market from here on could only go in one direction:
Up. So they agreed to mortgages where either the rate adjusted to some
exorbitantly high percentage in x years or a balloon payment came due in
x years. That was to be supposedly "easily handled" because the property
would be worth much more by then versus at purchase. Then one fine day
... *POOF*

I would have to argue as I worked with a fairly astute bloke who
invested his money by buying houses for rental. I remember, long
before the actual crash, his agent, in California, recommending that
he stop buying houses as the market was overheated.


Then he had a very smart agent. I tried to tell a higher level real
estate agent the very same thing in the years 2005 and 2006 and was
laughed at. They even lost their own home ...


And anyone who actually believes that "the market can't go down" is
ignoring history.The first big financial crash I find recorded was in
1623 and they have been continuing at an average of every eight years
ever since.


Financial "experts" had probably forgotten all about that crash latest
by 1625 and were all back to gung-ho mode if they were like those of today.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/