N U D S

Tiger's Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:17:00 +0000

I'm not going to defend adultery. I'm not looking to excuse any philandering. What I'm trying to do with this article is help people answer the question 'why?' Why do men do this? Are they drunk with power, self-importance, a sense of entitlement? Well that's certainly plays a significant role. I've also heard that it's just natural born instinct. This supposes men aren't meant to be with one partner and cannot resolve the internal conflict of societal expectations with animal instinct. None of these satisfy the question, and have more often than not been used as dismissive, quick one liners to deal with a very complicated topic.

If you are seeking truth you need to dig a little deeper. If you are a woman that wants to really know why so you can get closure and move on, the one liners won't help you. If you are a man who wants to know why you did what you did even though you knew the dire consequences, the dismissive male bashing won't help. So far the current national discourse on intercourse has done nothing in the way of providing a deeper understanding of the issue so as to provide helpful advice. It's all blame and excuses, and no problem solving.

I came to this realization years ago. It was true with Gary Hart, true with Clinton, Sanford, etc., etc., etc. I also noticed that there were all kinds of college courses on Women's Studies and absolutely no Men's Studies. Again, the snappy one liner is that all the other courses are Men's studies. Snark. In truth there are no real courses to help men deal understand and take control of their mind and bodies. Part of the reason is that most men wouldn't take the course. 'How To Be a Man' and the companion 'Guide To Hooking Up' are more like oral traditions passed down from generation to generation. Something seems to be missing in the translation, however.

The machismo that prevents any Men's Studies course from taking the academic world by storm also leads to acceptance of bad solutions to vexing problems in gender relations. For the most part the way to keep a man's libido in check has been through demonization that leads to self-repression. This bottles up the problem only to be unleashed and a very unhealthy fashion later in life. Sure, the macho man thinks he's walking the line, right up until he has his first indiscretion. Then his world comes crashing down around him. So what happened? Why did he do it?

Two contributing factors that most people don't talk enough about are sex drive and how men separate sex and love. Sure, it comes up in the form of dismissive one-lines, but it's never really explored deeply. Again, this is not an excuse, just an explanation.

The truth is different people have sex drives of varying intensities. Sure, you may think you have a healthy sex drive, but there are people out there that have been wired differently. Everybody is different, and this includes their sex drive. Imagine it as a scale of 1 to 10. The reality is that some people go to 11. It's not about self control, or being a dirty person, their sex drive is in overdrive. All the demonization and self-repression the world can muster is not enough to keep their libido in check. The worse thing that could happen is that this individual buys in to the claptrap and tries to suppress their desires. That is a time bomb that will blow up their life.

This doesn't mean they should be allowed to cheat. They just need to understand themselves better, their own needs, and be honest with themselves and their partner. This dovetails into the next topic, the difference between love and sex.

As has been said time and time again, men separate love and sex. A guy might love the woman he has sex with and he might not. Sex is something you do with someone, true; but it can also be something you do to someone. To put a finer point on this, making love is being with someone, carnal pleasure is doing it to someone. A man looking for release through sex will find someone to do, not someone to be with. Being with someone is special and carries great meaning. You look to be with someone you love and respect. Doing someone is down and dirty and is not something you want to do to someone you love and respect. It's fine to have some naughty time with your lovely lady, but when there is a baby in the crib, or kids down the hall, it ruins the perception she's your shagadelic minx forever.

Again, I'm not trying to excuse this. But if you're a woman reading this, doesn't this sound a lot like your cheating boyfriend or husband? If you're a guy, isn't this true? You want to do the Pamela Anderson type, but you want to be with the Hayden Panitierre type. If you want to do both, then you, sir, are an 11. Either that, or you haven't had enough experience and will encounter the with v. do paradox later in life and at great personal cost, Mr. Clinton.

The with v. do paradox creeps into the relationship slowly. As a guy you think you've got the best of both worlds at first. A woman that can be both a lover and friend. Then life gets in the way. The relationship morphs form one of dating and passion, to cold pizza and netflix. You are now with someone, but feel the need to do someone because of your sex drive, the need for release, and that base animal instinct. The person you are with doesn't fulfill that because of your new perception of them, and then you are susceptible to external influences. It usually takes years, maybe even decades, for this pent up passion to lead to an affair.

This disconnect arises in part because a man's sexuality is demonized and is sought to be repressed. Hence, his desires are seen as dirty and shameful. So much so that he won't consider his partner as the person to explore this side of himself with, but instead look to another to sate his lust.

The sad truth is that if he was open with his partner, more often that not, she'd be more than happy to help. She'd probably be ecstatic since more women complain about lack of sex after marriage than men. He just needs to get past that mental block, embrace his inner beast, and get down to business.

Sure, there are guys that are jerks and just have an affair because that's who they are. Just as sure as there are home wreckers who try to take a man away from his wife just for the joy of doing it, to see how far they can get. This doesn't explain why good seeds go bad, though. But for the others, it's important to acknowledge the truth that you can be with the person you do. It's just as likely that the person you are with wants you to do them and are wondering why you don't.

This is what I think happened to Tiger. A life of self-repression, living up to others ideals, and then encountering the paradox. Not knowing what it was he couldn't resolve the conflict between with and do. This problem coincided with outrageous fame and fortune in his case. We know women throw themselves at guys with money and power regardless of marital status. So right when he would be looking to find release by other means all these women were eager to do him. It's so hard to resist temptation when you are at your most vulnerable. He caved. Maybe he felt bad about it, figured he was just a bad guy for having dirty desires, and didn't look to resolve the problem. It was just par for the course for a top tier male athlete. Surely we know he wasn't the first and won't be the last. Maybe he's an 11, maybe he's a jerk, or maybe he needed to learn about men's sexuality from someone who wasn't trying to repress it.

Climaquiddick :: Fake But Accurate

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:15:00 +0000

So far the few news outlets are reporting on the leaked e-mails concerning Global Warming. The bottom line is that they cooked the books. The only defense they have is the same as Dan Rather's; fake but accurate. We know that strategy is a loser.

There is evidence of several crimes in these e-mails. The most egregious is their crime against the planet. By cooking the books they've hurt the very movement they supported. Hopefully this will be the death of alarmism and pragmatism can take its place. While I know quite a few warming skeptics I have yet to meet anyone who is pro-pollution. We can work toward a future of clean energy without the hype.

V is for Victimization

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:07:00 +0000

There is a new storm brewing about the new TV series 'V'. It would appear to be taking pot shots at the new Commander in Chief and his supporters. What is amazing is how closely art imitates life. But is this really ABC taking on the White House? Or, as discussed over at Big Hollywood, the story was actually done before The Won was even nominated!

It would seem that Big Hollywood got caught in their own trap. The current crop of politicians just can't help themselves and wind up making the Theater of the Absurd look mainstream. This reminds me of the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. The character played by Meryl Streep actually many viewers thought was styled after Hillary Clinton. While attempting to slime the Republicans, the fact that her actions seemed completely in line with what Clinton would do wound up backfiring.

This seems to be a common phenomenon where whenever left leaning writers try to gin up fear of what Republicans might do they inadvertently expose the Democrats actually in the act of doing the dirty deed. Expect 'V' to be cancelled as there is no way to write about a wild eyed populace high on hope getting eaten up by their own ignorance without damaging the DNC.

ACORN and The New Tactics of the New Media

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:25:00 +0000

Over the past couple decades politicians and political groups associated with both parties have been caught doing bad things. Whether or not getting caught leads to removal or sanctions has usually depended on how long they stay in the media cycle. If the media is out for blood they won't move on until they've achieved their goal. Claims of media bias arise when Republicans get the klieg lights while Democrats won't even get their party affiliation mentioned. The tactic has been to bury the scandal on a late Friday for Democrats and open wide on a Monday for Republicans. Fairly transparent, and fairly successful.

In response to real and perceived media bias there has been a rise in citizen journalists doing exposés. Without the same size megaphone they were able to annoy, but not unseat. It was easy enough for the old media to bury the report and then simply move on. Finally somebody figured it out.

The revelations about ACORN from the first video shocked the country. Except Charlie Gibson, of course, who was left unawares. Yet, a single video would be easy to refute and bury. In response they posted a second video. Now we start to see a trend. When the third video came out the game changed forever.

There is no real way for the opposition to know how many more videos there are. Also, when somebody releases a series of anything they usually save the best for last. Why have the US Census, the House of Representatives, and the US Senate moved so quickly against ACORN? Fear of the unknown. More shoes will drop and they cannot afford to be on the wrong side of the issue.

They also know that they can no longer control the message. Being on the wrong side of an issue has not been detrimental for certain members of the political class through the years. Since the media are willing lap dogs they know they won't be savaged on the nightly news. The difference now, after the Van Jones scandal, is that the nightly news no longer controls the story. Nor does the print media.

From now on, when a story hits the internet, damage control must start immediately. However, when it hits, those in the crosshairs must wait to find out if the other shoe drops. In waiting they risk losing control of the narrative, but the only other option is to come clean. We know that won't happen. Those providing cover won't know the extent of the damage and thus the whole apparatus will be frozen.

Can't stop the signal.

Male Bashing Stimulus?

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:45:00 +0000

Over at the Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers explains how the 'shovel ready' stimulus package got derailed by feminist activists. What she'll soon find out is that those chickens will be coming home to roost pretty darn soon. What we're seeing in various states is that the so-called recession proof jobs such as education and healthcare are taking a beating.

Many school districts are losing population due to the economic downturn, lowering their student population, and accordingly their funding. School funding is allocated on a per pupil basis. Fewer pupils means less money. This has resulted in many first year teachers being let go, next in line are the second year teachers. Now this is based on seniority, not actual number of years in the profession. There are many teachers with decades of experience that are considered first year because they relocated from another state. The stink of it is they relocated based on marketing programs by various school boards pleading for more teachers to fill the demand. Now that demand is gone and therefore so is the money. Keep in mind that education is a profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' - code for female dominated.

Another profession that is part of the 'human infrastructure' is nursing. It seems there has always been more job openings for nurses than nurses to fill them for the past several decades. It's been a complete crisis. Part of the problem, however, has always been the exceptionally poor working conditions and low pay that nurses receive. They enter the profession with high hopes, then bail out once they find a better paying job or a job with a better work/life balance. It just so happens a lot of those higher paying jobs were related to the construction industry. Mortgage brokers, title agents, insurance agents, and other related professionals that were formerly nurses are now unemployed. They've returned to nursing, and in many cases have many years of nursing experience to draw upon. While we certainly don't have a surplus of nurses, we no longer have the incredible demand we once did. Further, as more people lose their jobs and stop paying their health insurance premiums we can expect the formerly recession proof healthcare industry to start feeling similar pains to those in the education business.

What all this comes down to is a very simple principle. There are jobs that generate tax revenue and jobs that consume tax revenue. An inbalance in favor of generation will lead to more revenue and can lead to a reduction in taxes (LOL!) or an increase in consumption. When the inbalance tips in favor of consumption there needs to be a decrease in that consumption (ROFL!). Any attempt to raise tax rates to make up for the lost revenue will further erode revenues by disincentivizing business. Then the imbalance will accelerate in favor of consumption until the whole system falls over. See: U.S.S.R.

So, bottome line here, is that in an effort to make the stimulus more fair for a certain portion of society we find out that this particular portion has been a net consumer of tax revenues and not a generator. As such, they've been riding on the backs of those that have been paying into the system. If they don't get thrown off they'll wind up killing the golden goose. It's a pity those reposonsible for education couldn't see this coming.

Great Video about 'ISMs'

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sun, 10 May 2009 16:47:00 +0000

Barney Frank Denies Housing Bubble

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:15:00 +0000

Barney Frank caught in the act.

h/t Pat Dollard

Lower The Bar

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:41:00 +0000

We all knew after the election there'd be the need to manage expectations. After all the hype over the course of two years there'd be need for some serious lowering of the bar, otherwise those expecting the whole world to love us and the economy to bounce back would start having second thoughts. With the mid-term election a mere two years away if those lofty goals were not met then team Donkey might be in for a reversal of fortune. So now, instead of merely lowering the bar, they've gone and lowered the DOW. With their actions and talk of nationalizing this and that they've managed to encourage investors to exit the market in droves sending the DOW below 7,000 points.

Freddie, Fannie, and the Democrats have accomplished what Al Qaeda could only dream. Now that they are in a hole they just keep digging by adding to the debt. Many people, even some of the new administration's supporters, wonder why. Well I'm here to tell you, so pay close attention. The electorate are known for one consistent quality, and it's the only constant in a game with thousands of variables. That constant is known as the short attention span. In general elections nothing really matters but the six months before the election. That's the only time people are really paying attention and they'll most likely forget the previous misgivings they've had if they are doing good, relatively speaking, at that point in time.

Did you see the catch? I wrote 'relatively speaking'. That means relative not to their best ever condition, but thanks to their short term memory, it means their most recent condition. In 18 months, if there happens to be any upward movement in the market the press will be singing 'Happy Days Are Here Again' and the entire left will be chanting, to borrow a phrase, "stay the course."

It's true, as things get worse over the next 18 months, the new President will continue to lose favor and therefore political capital to advance his agenda. This, however, doesn't matter since with the new bailouts and budget he will have what he needs to press on without any new appropriations. That is why it was so important for the Democrats to get their bailout and budget passed. It's a fait accompli. They now no longer need popular support to advance their agenda.

What the Democrats are banking on is at least some semblance of a recovery from this new lowered bar within the next 18 months to pin their re-election hopes on. If they don't get that, and lose control of congress, they still have the veto pen and still have another two years to show results. For even if the Democrats lose both houses, which is The power of this huge stimulus action is that they've cleared the path ahead of any possible resistance and can just get on with it.

The RNC needs to respond to that, worry about the bigger picture, and not keep crying over spilt milk.

Sarah Palin Abused Power

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:48:00 +0000

Further proof that government jobs are jobs for life. If someone is dangerously incompetent they cannot be removed from office. Will this kangaroo court decision get airplay? Much more than the strong ties between Ayers and Obama, that's a guarantee.

If team McCain is smart, and that is a really big if, they will use this as an opportunity to show the problems with government and the dangers reformers face when they attempt to 'clean house'. They should also point out that if the McCain Palin ticket is elected that the public can expect even more of this type of squealing as they clean up Washington D.C. Thus, every time the Dems try to bring this up it will turn into a negative for their side.

According to McCain he's taken off the gloves. He hasn't thrown any punches, though, and seems to be playing patty-cake with Obama. The Republican nominee has been getting all kinds of grief on the campaign trail for not fighting back, for not talking about Raines, Rezko, Wright, and all the other friends of Barack that have been responsible for bombing the US economy. Obama has had absolutely no problem blaming the economic meltdown on Bush. Neither the Republicans nor team McCain has answered that charge.

Anybody that has been reading this blog knows that most of my predictions and pronouncements have accurately predicted far too many moves during this political season to be a coincidence. I'm not Nostradamus, just someone who is actually 'in touch'. My latest prediction is as follows. If Team McCain continues this gutless campaigning, the same kind of gutless campaigning that angered conservatives when Bush ran for his 2nd term, he will begin to lose the base. He has until October 15th, the date of the last debate, to tell the American people the truth about the economy or he's an also ran. The media need to know he means business in a way they cannot ignore (what better venue than an unfiltered debate) and the Republican faithful need to know he understands their frustrations.

Largest Audience Ever for VP Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 01:12:00 +0000

The AFP notes that the Palin-Biden debate was the most watched VP debate ever. It also drew a larger audience than the McCain-Obama debate. Despite the post debate snap polling declaring Biden the winner the real winner was the one person that could draw that large an audience. It wasn't McCain, it wasn't Obama, and it most certainly wasn't Biden. There was only one reason that the viewership for this debate was so large: Palin. That reality must send shivers down the spines of those that know what that means. The silent majority has found their candidate and they will turn out in droves come November.

Compare and Contrast

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:00:00 +0000

After watching Burnin' Down the House the following ad from the Obama camp is laughable.

Sorry, Barack, but it wasn't Bush that stifled oversight of Freddie and Fannie, it was the Democrats. Watch the video and learn something.

This ad, released today, by the way, looks like it was designed to dovetail with Pelosi's speech before the roll call vote for the bailout. She reiterated that it was eight years of failed Bush policies, not the Democrat run Freddie and Fannie scandal, that led to the current meltdown. Very similar language to that of Barack. Coincidence?

Methinks the Democrats were hoping for a passage of the bill and then use that as proof with Republicans ratifying the notion that it was failed Bush policies that led to the crisis. Now the Democrats are squealing that the Republicans had their feelings hurt and should have voted for the bill anyway. I think the House Republicans were smarter than that and recognized a setup when they saw one.

The Republicans need to make sure that the Democrats own up to their obstructionism of regulations for Freddie and Fannie. That should be a condition of any Republican support for the bill. Further, it should come from the mouth of one Nancy Pelosi, and no other.

Burnin' Down The House

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:26:00 +0000

Temporary link here until the original gets new music. They should have never used copyrighted material considering there is plenty of royalty free music available online.

Bridge to Nowheres

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:22:00 +0000

Check it out over at Hotair. CNN actually takes on Biden and Obama. Not sure if this is to maintain some semblance of balance, but there it is, nonetheless.

$700,000,000,002.00

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:57:00 +0000

How did the Treasury Department come up with that number? Check it out, of all places, at the LA Times.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:41:00 +0000

A very lengthy article full of quotes and links over at American Thinker. Definitely worth your time to read the whole thing. This will answer the question of 'why?' for so many conservatives. While this may be rejected by the left as conspiracy theorist pap, the truth is out there for all to see. Key paragraph:

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

The Hero Saves The Negotiations

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:25:00 +0000

To understand why the Democrats have been squealing like stuck pigs all week read up on the bailout negotiations over at Flopping Aces. McCain saved the day for the taxpayer and the Democrats had to get the spotlight off the pork barrel spending programs they tried to funnel money to, like ACORN. Lest that news actually get reported they had to give the press some red meat for which to feign indignation. McCain : fighting commies since 1967.

McCain's Gut Check

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:15:00 +0000

The Democrats are doing everything they can to cast the current financial crisis as a free market failure. Over 700,000 people have seen the 'Burnin' Down The House' video on YouTube and know otherwise. Not only was this a social experiment gone awry, the Democrats cried 'racism' every time the notion of regulating Fannie and Freddie was discussed. It's on video for all to see. I find it curious that the safeguards put in place to prevent Enron type failures, which led to the mark-to-market rule that accelerated the current bank failures, were somehow racist when applied to the GSEs. Why were they exempt? More to the point, why isn't McCain and the GOP driving this point home with relentless commercials citing chapter and verse of the DNC obstructionism that led to this disaster?

I know McCain promised to suspend his campaign, but the deal has now been struck and it's time to suit up. How about Republicans refusing to support the bill if even one more Democrat comes out and tries to pin the blame on the free market economy instead of their pet project pork barrel largesse? They have the votes, let them own it. Then run the commercials non stop and name the Wall Street fat cats (all Democrats, by the way) that ran their ships aground.

There's not much time left in this election season. Frank and Dodd have handed the Republicans the best issue they could have ever hoped for and there is plenty of video out there tying them to the financial meltdown. All the GOP needs is a candidate with the guts to take it to them. So how about it, maverick? If you really do put Country First, as you claim, you'll provide the American public the details they need to make an informed decision on November 4th. Or are you going to go soft and be 'above the fray' like President Bush? That didn't work for him, and had dire consequences for the party. Being above the fray is being out of the game in this day and age.

It's gut check time. Move out and draw fire.

Point of Order

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:24:00 +0000

One of the more ignorant talking points of the Democrats has to do with Afghanistan being the real war that Iraq distracted us from. The cant is that we took our eyes off Afghanistan to take down a dictator who was obviously a bad dude, but had no dog in this fight. This presupposes that Iraq had no interest in an American defeat in Afghanistan. That Saddam would suspend his funding of terrorism in the case of Afghanistan is absurd, but this is what we are required to take as fact if we are to believe this talking point.

Amongst supporters and leaners the Democrats will assuredly get away with this line of thinking that defies reason. We live for today and the reality on the ground at the end of 2008 contrasts starkly with the world that was in 2003, yet a populace known for a short term memory may not understand the threat posed by both Iran and Iraq to our efforts in Afghanistan. We have seen what Iran has done to help the insurgency and terrorists in Iraq via the Qods forces and propping up Al-Sadr. If Iraq was still under the thumb of Saddam then Afghanistan would be the beneficiary of not only Iran's thugs but those of Saddam, as well. Al Qaeda and the Taliban would have all the materiel support that they would need thanks to the combined support of these two rogue nations.

Revisionist historians don't want to discuss what the military and political implications of their proposals would lead to if the geopolitical landscape before the liberation of Iraq had been left to fester. Now they don't have to because the cow is out of the barn. Just keep in mind, however, that if Saddam were still around our efforts everywhere would be subject to his oil funded shenanigans.

Party of Inclusiveness and Tolerance on Display

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:29:00 +0000

Democrats Opposing Regulation of Freddie and Fannie

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:22:00 +0000

Exit question for team McCain: Most of the beneficiaries of the bailout are Democrats who are a big funding source of the DNC, if they go under the DNC will lose a major source of future contributions so why not hold out until these corporations fail in order to disrupt the flow of cash from Wall Street to D.C.?

Excellent Video Detailing the Cause of the Economic Meltdown

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:06:00 +0000

Follow The Money

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:43:00 +0000

Why hasn't congress called for an investigation?

Conflict of interest on display.

Who Opposed Regulation?

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:22:00 +0000

All the info you need right here:

And this is why the Democrats hate Fox News!

$700,000,000,001.00

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:16:00 +0000

...and another thing, what of the houses and condos next door where the property value is $500,000 and the mortgage is current? Their neighbor just bought in for $168,000 and therefore whoever is holding the note for $500,000 has to mark it down to $168,000 thanks to the mark to market laws of Sarbanes Oxley. The homeowners either cough up $332,000 or they get foreclosed on. Mind the ripples.

$700,000,000,000.00

noreply@blogger.com (Ken) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:45:00 +0000

It's not much if you say it fast, but my oh my is that a big number. But it's not seven hundred billion dollars of cash, it's seven hundred billion dollars of real estate that the American taxpayer will be guaranteeing. Right now we're being told that there is value to the underlying equity that will be recoverable making the bail out an investment, not a write off, that will pay dividends down the road. In essence the tax payer will take over the mortgages and may make money on the deal when the properties sell.

I disagree and let me tell you why.

I don't believe homeowners comprise the majority of failed mortgages. From what I've been seeing in the hottest markets, which according to Forbes happens to be where most of the damage is, most failing mortgages are from investors parading as individual homeowners who were left holding the bag when the market ran out of fools. You see, the entire real estate market in the hot spots was based on the greater fool theory where one buys the property with the only intent of selling it off to another buyer at a greater price. That new buyer, in turn, is only looking to offload the property to yet another buyer who, again, is only looking to sell off the property. None of these buyers had any intent of actually occupying the property. This means, to borrow software development parlance, that there was no end user.

The lack of an end user is hugely important in this particular crisis because it skewed the market in ways that may be unrecoverable. Now, in a typical housing bust there is a price correction, houses become affordable again, and the world goes on. Reason being is that their is intrinsic value in those houses based on the underlying market. The houses have usually been designed for the typical family in its region and there is still need for those types of houses, it was just that the people in need were priced out of the market.

In this latest bust, however, the length of the boom and the type of boom led to the development of unit types for which there is no underlying market. Where before people might choose to live in something other than their dream home for the right price, there is now a complication which changes the game.

First let me discuss the units that were developed. There is a range from shoddily built single family homes all the way through multi-million dollar condo towers. Nothing unusual there, that range is fairly normal. But the plans of these units have changed based on the rush to market. The houses have become grandiose and the condos have become puny.

In the case of the grandiose homes the builders were trying to capitalize on the square footage appraisal phenomenon. Since home values were based on size multiplied by value, and values were skyrocketing, they built more to get more money. They could add space to a home at $60 per square foot and resell that space at $200 psf and upwards of $300 psf. Homebuyers had to pay the extra dough or find another place to go. Thus, we've seen the average size home grow by almost 1,000 square feet, or $200,000+ added to the purchase price.

But that added square footage doesn't really add $200,000 of value to the home. Further, that extra 1,000 s.f. requires more energy to heat and cool. So while some people may relish the opportunity to buy a grandiose home at fire sale prices, the cost of running and maintaining the place may still be out of their price range. Even if they can swing the utility bill, or just open the windows in the summer, there's that other complication that will kill the deal.

That complication is shared, even exacerbated, with the condo units. The condo units were designed with the flipper in mind. They were smaller, cost less, and were an excellent financial vehicle for those who were spooked by the dot bomb stock market bust and were looking for another place to put their money. They were just looking to offload the property on the greater fool and really didn't look at the unit. It was small, had one bedroom or was a studio, and on a per square foot basis was extremely expensive. Sounds like a lot of condos all over the world, but the bidding wars priced these out of contention for their ideal market.

Singles and young urbanites are the perfect people for these units, at the right price. Instead one could buy a grandiose house for the money they were asking for the bid up condos. The young urbanites would need to share a condo with friends, sub-let a bedroom, or find some other means by which to make the purchase of the condo a good idea. Well, you can't rent out a room or split rent when you only have one bedroom or if the condo is a studio. So what's the underlying market at the inflated price point? There is none, hence the bust. A price point correction won't change this because of the complication shared with the single family homes.

The complication of which I write is the HOA. For the next several years the HOA fees will be amortized by fewer homeowners while costs will go up. Many of these HOAs have also taken on responsibilities that the local municipality either didn't want to provide OR couldn't provide. Some of these include trash collection, fire service, provision and maintenance of common space, and other items pertaining to infrastructure. The HOA fees range from a couple hundred per month to several thousand. It's usually based on the size of the home with larger homes bearing a larger share of the burden. So, while the cost of the home will be going down, there will be fewer people to share the rising cost of maintenance.

In the case of the grandiose home, if the government resells a $500,000 home for $250,000 a favorable 30 year mortgage would have a monthly payment just under $1500 per month. That's a steal. However, the monthly maintenance on that $500,000 house was somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 per month, and that number is going up. If it nudges up just a little to $1000 in order to keep up the responsibilities required of the HOA to the homeowners and to the municipality, that makes a monthly payment of $2,500 before utilities. That $1000 surcharge will keep the grandiose home out of the reach of many people that are looking for homes and could otherwise qualify for a $250,000 mortgage. That $1000 surcharge will require the price of the house be dropped an additional $82,000 to keep the monthly cost in line. That turns a $500,000 house into a $168,000 house. That's over a 66% drop in value, yet the increase in HOA fees over the term of the loan may force the new homeowner out.

The some problem holds true for the condos. Not only have they limited their market by overuse of an inflexible type - the one bedroom / studio - these units have been saddled with maintenance fees that dwarf those of the grandiose house. That studio will be on the hook for $600 per month and the one bedroom will be closer to the same $800 our single family homeowner was paying. At the height of the insanity those units were selling for upward of $400,000. If that drops by 66%, following the previous model, that will bring the unit down to a very affordable sounding $132,000. Assuming, again, the same favorable loan rates the mortgage payment becomes a very reasonable $792 per month. Tack on $700 in maintenance fees, however, and the monthly burden becomes $1492 for a one person or one couple unit. In the same market, however, our yuppie can get a two bedroom apartment for less than that, share the rent with a friend and use the money they save for a new Audi A4.

Those single units will have a hard time selling at any price point since the value proposition isn't there. Some may get in the door for next to nothing, but they'll have a hard time reselling the place for anything more than the bargain basement price they paid for it. So, the HOA fees will have an impact that will hurt these units that haven't been designed with an underlying market in mind. I haven't even brought up property taxes, which are in addition to everything we've discussed.

Considering how price sensitive this market is, any additional expenses will have to come out of the value of the property. I expect that to drop the costs at least an additional 10% on top of everything else. To keep the math clean let's just say the overall drop in property value will be around 75% for the vast majority of these foreclosed homes. Further, the lack of an underlying market will prevent any property value rise in these properties over the next several years. So what kind of return can we expect for our $700,000,000,000.00? Expect to get only $175 billion of that back. That being the case, we should make sure that we don't put more than $175 billion in.