Northern Virginia's June 2011 housing sales were down 18% YoY, and median prices were up 8%. The average days on the market increased by 24% to 51 days.
(The above statistics include Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls Church City, Fauquier County, Loudoun County, Manassas City, Manassas Park City, and Prince William County).
Monday, July 11, 2011
Northern Virginia June Housing Sales
Posted by Harriet at 10:43 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
97 comments:
Two years ago today, as the barely hit Arlington started posting YOY gains, a shock spread across the doomers of this board as the "its moving in" thesis was unwraveling...
Undaunted, one of our (still present) posters, in disbelief of the lack of price declines, uttered this simple post in disgust:
"Arlington is going to get theirs, one way or another."
Ahh yes, 2 years later, we can indeed say Arlington did "get theirs". A 10% increase in prices in 2010, followed by another 5% increase this year -- devastating im sure.
Yep, Arlington sure did "get theirs" -- glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, glug...
The numbers are encouraging. It will be harder and harder to revisit 165 on CS.
I've received two more postcard solicitations from agents seeking sellers. Both were for rentals that I purchased a couple years ago in Reston. There is NO low end inventory.
I'm going to the Courthouse tomorrow. I haven't been in ages. I'll report back.
Anon
Decreases in Volume while prices increase and DOM increases is consistent with a local top.
"pat said...
Anon
Decreases in Volume while prices increase and DOM increases is consistent with a local top.
7/11/11 9:38 PM"
True. And I would be worried but for one factor.
6 years ago, a wise bear I knew made a point "ITS THE INVENTORY STUPID" and oh how right he was:
http://www.recharts.com/nova/nova.html
However, given that Arlington inventory is down year over year over year over year over year, I tend to think that the price gains are a more a function of supply vs demand, than they are indicative of a "local top".
Out of curiosity, do you really believe this? Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that Arlington is showing a local top? If so, whats your take on inventory? How low will it be once that local top bursts? Did you even look at inventory at all when declaring it was a "local top"?
BTW, if you do answer, I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic (i.e. inventory and a local top in Arlington). More often than not, at this point in the conversation, you respond mentioning something about "bernanke" or "my rent is cheap". Thats fine, but thats not really an answer.
Thus, if you do answer, answers on point like "no, I didnt look at inventory" or "I dont think that inventory matters because ...." would be appreciated.
"contrarian said...
A year from now the country (not to mention the rest of the world) will be in a full blown depression worse than the 1930's. The reality is, we are in it now, but people haven't come to that conclusion yet....
7/11/11 9:38 PM"
Worse than the great depression within a "year from now"??? My goodness, thats a scary prediction. You sure you meant to say that?
Far as I can tell, US GDP went from 103.6 billion down to 56.4 billion in the great depression -- a staggering -45.6% drop in GDP!!!
Thus if you are right, our current GDP (14.369 Trillion), should be down to 6.46 Trillion by Q2, 2012. Seems a pretty reckless prediction to me, but what do I know?
Again, perhaps you said that in haste. Perhaps you said that in anger and frustration that deflation isnt happening, and you let hyperbole get the best of you.
If so, thats fine -- it happens to all of us. Thus, if this was indeed hyperbole, please delete this post by 10AM wednesday July 13, 2011, and all will be forgotten.
However, if you choose to let that prediction stand -- if you do not delete that reckless prediction by 10AM tomorrow, I will add it to the "Contrarian's prediction progress report" series I will be doing on you for the next 12 months or so.
Choice is yours my friend.
Anon
Inventory does matter, but,
let us assume supply and demand.
for a reduced supply, price will increase (Point to you).
However for a given Increase in price,
demand will decrease (Point to me).
For a given increase in price, supply will increase. (Didn't happen).
so why given price went up, why didn't supply increase?
why didn't people who held off in 09 to sell, didn't sell in 11?
i would argue 25% of the supply is underwater and can't sell except short, so as long as that can be handled via ultra low rates, it's shadow supply, and the banks are holding shadow inventory courtesy of my citation of a 3X increase in vacancy within arlington.
remember i did cite the CPHD data between 2000 and 2010.
now will 5% vacancy destroy the market? nah.
but it would knock prices down by at least that same amount.
the banks would love for a local bubble psychology to start again so they can ripoff new victims and
restart the bubble.
look cheryl isnt' wrong when she says fundametals are good locally.
and inventory sucks, but, why?
why is inventory sucking?
Inventory is low because there is no pressure to sell. Most are employed and don't care if their home is underwater. Foreclosures are way down from a few years ago. Why? The weak hands have been washed out. They are now renters once again. There are always foreclosures in every market; good, bad or average.
Why would a normal person sell just because the value of his home dropped? The shorts I am seeing are all investor owned (specuvestors). Do you argue that prices are not increasing? Do you ascribe to contrarian's doom mentality?
Bear in mind that the worst bear here is looking to buy in the next couple of years (and has been looking for the past couple (?) of years. What does this say about his doom scenario? Heck, you are putting in offers too.
I would agree than most normal people would not sell just because the value of their home has dropped. Of course they wouldn't.
But some people have to move and some people want to move - move to bigger, to smaller, to the country, to another area for work, for divorce, any number of reasons.
And I would guess (which is all any of us can do) that there are a number of people who have been putting off moving until prices rise - same as there was a goodly number of people waiting to buy until prices decrease.
So now it appears prices are rising, why aren't sellers coming to market?
Why isn't there a noticable increase in inventory? I am sincerely curious.
"Pat said...so why given price went up, why didn't supply increase?
why didn't people who held off in 09 to sell, didn't sell in 11?
i would argue 25% of the supply is underwater and can't sell except short, so as long as that can be handled via ultra low rates, it's shadow supply, and the banks are holding shadow inventory courtesy of my citation of a 3X increase in vacancy within arlington."
Where are you coming up with the "25% is underwater" calculation? Thats probably about right for the DC MSA, but remember, we are only talking about Arlington (and whether or not, it is a "local top").
IIRC, I think you yourself once conceded that Arl is probably about 7% underwater (correct me if that is wrong). Further, given that median prices have risen back to the 2006 peak, and given that the overwhelming majority of Arl buyers (a) made some sort of deposit and (b) have been servicing debt for 5 years since the 2006 peak, the % underwater is likely less.
"Pat said...the banks would love for a local bubble psychology to start again so they can ripoff new victims and
restart the bubble."
If thats the case, look for them to get greedy and INCREASE the inventory in Arlington. Until then, its more reasonable than not to assume either (a) there is not a huge snog of Arlington inventory they plan to release to "ripoff" people or (b) even if there is, the banks will continue to do what theyve been doing the last 2 years -- release it, drip by drip by drip, into an ever increasing price environment.
"Pat said...look cheryl isnt' wrong when she says fundametals are good locally.
and inventory sucks, but, why?
why is inventory sucking?"
Because this is how markets heal. Years ago on this blog, bears would argue that as soon as prices started to increase, a bunch of "sellers in waiting" would pounce, flooding the market and cause prices to fall once again. The problem is, that is not what happens, and (to my knowledge) never has in past downturns.
Instead, what happens is that there is no "moment" or "trigger" to cause the sellers to suddenly flood the market en masse. Instead, sellers in waiting (to whatever extent they exist) make individual value judgments on how suitable the market is for re-entry. Thus, the do not appear en masse. They re-appear, incrimentally, house by house, slightly nudging inventory one way or the other.
They continue this stranglehold on the market for as long as necessary, denying hesitant buyers their wanted price decreases and smoking them out one by one, causing prices to first stagnate, and then rise. Its simply the reverse of what happened in 2006, and if it didnt happen, no market would ever heal... And yet they do.
This individual evaluation process by sellers has been taking place, each and every single day since early 2009(or before). Its honestly no different from the sitters on this blog. The most bullish have bitten the bullet and gone in, while the most bearish are still sitting. Likewise, on the sellers side the most agressive "sellers in waiting" are likely long gone, whereas the most conservative think its better to "wait another year" before they even think about listing.
In any event, you are right that when prices increase supply should increase (eventually). Yet for whatever reason, either good (i.e. natural healing process) or bad (i.e. banks holding off flooding Arl market), it hasnt happened.
And therein lies the central point. Until you see some increase in the inventory levels, I think it is reasonable to discuss if (and its a big if) we are teasing out a "local top". Until then, seeing continued stagnant to dropping inventory and concluding "we are at a local top" is simply ludicrous.
"LJJ said...
And I would guess (which is all any of us can do) that there are a number of people who have been putting off moving until prices rise - same as there was a goodly number of people waiting to buy until prices decrease."
LJJ - you posted this as I was writing. Bingo.
"LJJ said...Why isn't there a noticable increase in inventory? I am sincerely curious."
See the 2nd half of my response to Pat. You are right. Eventually it will happen. However, it will only happen as quickly as the market will bear, and apparently the market cant handle much right now.
FWIW, in the last downturn 90-92, price declines stopped in 92, yet inventory continued to drop (or stay at extremely low levels) until 1996. It was only at that time that the market could handle an inventory increase, and by then, it was pretty much "off to the races" in terms of prices.
I dont expect prices to soar again, but my guess is that it may be several years (2+) still until we see a noticeable increase in inventory, and then, it will only increase so long as prices (at that time) can support it.
Contrarian,
I would imagine that mortgage balance decreases will only reduce the supply of homes available at distressed prices. How does this result in lower prices?
Full blown depression in a year? Even if this does occur (which it won't), I'm not concerned. During the Great Depression, people who remained employed enjoyed an increase in their standard of living. As noted before (curtesy of a link from another poster), rents climbed steadily throughout the 30's; peaking in 1940 at an all-time high. A housing shortage lasted into the 1950's due to lack of construction in the 30's. How much new construction have we seen in the last 4 or 5yrs?
"Contrarian said...Anon, you're delusional. Taxpayers can't afford to pay down the debt while simultaneously have residential price increases. It will be many decades before housing ecomes a commodity again."
Im willing to concede that. You are right, given the obvious pressures, perhaps its premature to assume arlington (remember that was the only thing I was arguing) will rise in earnest in a mere 2 years. It may be much longer. Point to you on that.
Still, the fact that prices may not rise says nothing toward your arrogant cocksure prediction that prices are going to drop 50% in the next 2 years. Does it?
Or your most recent contention:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Contrarian said...A year from now the country (not to mention the rest of the world) will be in a full blown depression worse than the 1930's. 7/11/11 9:38 PM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, the clock is ticking -- pull the plug on a statement made in haste by 10AM tomorrow, or be held accountable for saying it going foward. Your choice...
For the record, its past 10AM and this prediction still stands:
"Contrarian said...A year from now the country (not to mention the rest of the world) will be in a full blown depression worse than the 1930's. 7/11/11 9:38 PM"
Look first for Contrarian's deletion of the prediction, followed a few months later by (instead of him admitting he was wrong) some sort of comment along the lines of he "didnt say that" or that I "made it up", etc. etc.
When will these milestones happen? Hard to say for sure...tune in to next months "Contrarian's prediction progress report" to find out!!!
"contrarian said...
Anon,
You simply prove my point"
Damn right I do. And I have no shame in admitting it. You do know, BTW, that you bring this upon yourself? You know this right?
If you cant tell by now, my biggest issue with you is (lack of) accountability. You continuously make stupid, reckless, irresponsible statements/predictions, and when they go belly up, you do anything and everything in your power to refuse to acknowledge the same.
It doesnt have to be like that Contrarian. A certain blogger (who I shall not name) made a few bullish predictions last year that appeared borderline ridiculous. Thus when I called him out on the failed predictions he admitted, point blank:
"it was wrong, no excuses"
Well that was pretty much the end of it. In the end, I thanked him for his honesty, and we both moved on.
You have this option too you know? You could take this "accountability -- then move on" approach. But you dont.
Instead, you take a page from Bill Clinton's playbook during the Lewinsky scandal. When the story initially broke, Jan 1998, he could have come clean, taken his public flogging, and then move on.
Instead, he issued the now infamous "I...did...not...have...sexual relations with that woman", hoping this would be enough to make the issue go away. It didnt.
All it did was cause Clinton to be hounded by the media, harassed to the point he could not appear in public for fear he would have to confront the lewinsky question. He went underground for 8 months until he finally, FINALLY came clean, took his lumps, and then moved on.
Likewise, when your irresponsible, assinine predictions went belly up, you deleted them, hoping that would make the issue go away... It didnt. All it did was cause me to save your statements.
More recently, your new tactic is that you have chosen to lie. Nowadays, I confront you with a saved statement and you respond with baldfaced lies along the lines of "I didnt say that" or "anon, you make things up", in the hopes that would make the issue go away... It hasnt. All it did was compel me to start the "Contrarian's Predictions Progress Report" series.
Tit for tat, tit for tat -- round and round we go, where it stops, only (you) know. If you cant tell by now, the more you do do avoid accountability, the more I continue to apply relentless pressure to make your existence here miserable. Like I said, I do "simply prove your point". Guilty as charged.
Again though, it doesnt have to be like this Contrarian. You would not have to live a subterranean existence of hit and run comments if you would simply stand up and take accountability for some of the stupid, utterly assinine predictions and statements you have made in years past. Just simply stand up, take your lumps, and move on.
The choice is yours...
Contrarian...Tell you what, to show that I am sincere in offering you an olive branch of sorts about turning the page on our escalating arms race on accountability, lets start with something that should be extremely easy for you to admit to.
This is not something that is in any way central to your thesis of doom, yet (when both bulls and bears at the time questioned you about this) you worked EXTREMELY hard to avoid admitting. Ready?
Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
This is a softball Contrarian. the vast majority of posters who gave you flack about this are long gone. Thus, you now coming clean about Turner's credibility should not be a source of any real public humiliation for you. Very few who read this blog now remember or even know about whole the Hal Turner incident. So what say you Contrarian? You game?
Door is open Contrarian. Its now up to you to take it.
Contrarian said...
Ireland, Iceland and Greece have essentially defaulted, now the entire EU is in serious trouble.
agreed
Japan was insolvent before the quake and tsunami, now it is an afterthought.
agreed
The U.S. has a $14 trillion debt, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and $600 trillion in weapons of mass destruction (derivatives).
you really misunderstand derivatives, but otherwise, agreed
The entire banking system is insolvent due to the real estate collapse (commercial and residential). Congress is meeting with BHO daily to prevent defaulting on the country's obligations. Most major rating agencies have stated they will downgrade the U.S. credit rating. And, as the linked article says, there is a very real possibility the U.S. will eventually default.
agreed
So, Anon, tell me where I am wrong?
There are several, several ways you are wrong, mostly involving timing (you think everything is "imminent") and magnitude (you think everything is "severe"). But we can get to those later.
For now, we'll start with the basics - is Hal Turner Credible? Yes or No?
contrarian,
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just say (days ago) that by this time next year we would be in a full-blown depression far worse than the 1930's?
Contrarian, I will be happy to address your other post, but first I want to address this one as I feel we are on the verge of a real breakthrough here.
"Contrarian said...As far as Hal Turner, I couldn't care less. It could have been mickey mouse. I posted the quote because of WHAT he said, not because of WHO said it."
Precisely. Going back to this whole thing, the main problem most people had with you was that you would rely on whatever anyone said, (so long as it was doom) regardless of whether that person was credible or a crackpot, and then defend it as a legitimate thing we should be concerned with. That was the whole problem Contrarian!
This thread is a continuation of one 3 days earlier when you insisted Turner was credible.
http://novabubblefallout.blogspot.com/2009/04/march-new-home-sales.html
Notice how throughout this thread, you continue to flail and thrash about, launching this strawman after strawman, doing whatever you can to avoid being held accountable about Mr. Turner...yet, JF, myself, Leroy, etc. keep hammering away on the central point -- IS HAL TURNER CREDIBLE? YES OR NO. You never did answer.
Want to know the funniest thing of all? About halfway down when JF captures your (now deleted) quote:
"Contrarian said...I will be the first to admit I err when I do, but there is no sense in admitting I am wrong when I am not."
LOL -- Here we are, over 700 days later, and you have still not come clean on this, nor anything else you have ever written in the history of this blog!
So I ask you, once again, for the sake of perhaps a better relationship between you and I going forward Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"Contrarian said...
Anon,
I never claimed Turner was credible. I didn't know who Turner was. Substitute Mickey Mouse for Turner if that makes you happy.
7/14/11 5:38 PM"
Correct. Despite our continued asking, you never did give us a yes or no answer. All you did was say things like this (saved by Leroy 4/25/09 4:27AM):
"Contrarian said...At this point, despite all of your claims to the contrary, I have no reason to not believe Turner possesses the stress test results."
So now is your chance to come clean on the question you have thus avoided for 700 days and counting:
Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
"contrarian said...
Anon,
You are so stupid. I just admitted in the previous post I was wrong in how long this counter-trend rally would last."
Thats fair. And you are right, you have said that several times now. In all seriousness, I do apologize, I was wrong.
There see how easy that was?
"Contrarian said...I wasn't wrong on Turner, because I didn't care WHO Turner was. For the umpteenth time, it wasn't WHO said it, it was WHAT he said. But that simple concept seems to be beyond your scope of understanding.
7/14/11 5:41 PM"
You werent wrong on Turner because you refused to take a definitive stance on his credibility. All you did was say things like this (saved by Leroy 4/25/09 4:27AM):
"Contrarian said...At this point, despite all of your claims to the contrary, I have no reason to not believe Turner possesses the stress test results."
So now is your chance to come clean on the question you have thus avoided for 700 days and counting:
Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
"contrarian said...
Anon,
Turner stated the stress tests weren't credible as alleged by the banks. The stress tests were not credible, the banks are insolvent. Back then you argued the banks weren't going to collapse. You now admit the banks are insolvent. You flip-flopped."
You admitted above the banking system is insolvent, which means further declines in real estate. This is opposite of your previous position when you claimed the bottom of the market was three years ago, and a few days ago when you said the local market would only fall a few points from where it's currently position.
Simply put, Anon, you cannot claim the bottom is in (or close) and agree with me the banking system is insolvent and Freddie and Fannie will close their doors. Those issues are irreconcilable."
7/14/11 6:01 PM
You know, I am actually salivating at the prospect of having an honest debate about this! I have a few insights, based on what a client of mine is going through, that I believe you would find enlightening.
Still though, I feel we are talking past each other, and I do not want to go on to any other topics until we first address the issue at hand! We are so close to a major breakthrough Contrarian! So close!
Again, is Hal Turner Credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
All I did was quote Turner on what he said about the stress test results because I agreed with what he said."
Agreed, not in dispute
The fact Turner may be a scum bag does not change my view of the stress test or the fact I agreed with what Turner said about the stress test, whether he was telling the truth or not.
Wholeheartedly agree. You could care less about the person, its the principle (in this case insolvency). I get that.
If he wasn't telling the truth, I was not aware of it when I posted the comment.
This was our problem with what you posted, and you have thus far refused to address
That doesn't change what he said in that the banks are insolvent which you now concede.
Agreed
I was talking about principals -- the issue regarding the solvency of the banks (or lack thereof) -- and you were talking about personalities -- specifically Turners credibility (or lack thereof).
so again, let me ask you, for the record, now that we all agree on the principals, let me again, try to get you to turn the page to address the PERSONALITIES. Specifically, that one part of his personality that you continue to refuse to address for 700+ days: Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
No, Turner is not credible. I did not know who Turner was when I posted the comment, but that does not change one thing about WHY I posted the quote from Turner.
I quoted Turner on what he said about the stress test results because I agreed with what he said.
The fact Turner (like you) may be a scum bag does not change my view of the stress test or the fact I agreed with what Turner said about the stress test, whether he (like you) was telling the truth or not.
If he wasn't telling the truth, I was not aware of it when I posted the comment. That doesn't change what he said in that the banks are insolvent which you now concede.
I was talking about principals -- the issue regarding the solvency of the banks (or lack thereof) -- and you were talking about personalities -- specifically Turners credibility (or lack thereof). One thing has nothing to do with the other, but, again, you don't seem to grasp that simple concept.
Start sticking to principals and not personalities, you worthless idiot. :-)
7/14/11 6:43 PM"
YAYYYYYYY! You did it Contrarian! You did it! After 700 days of obfuscation, plus todays marathon session of 18 posts over 9 hours, it finally happened, those 5 little words trickled off your keyboard...No...Turner...is...not...credible...
The mystery that myself, JF, Leroy, Scott, etc. have been wondering for the past 700+ days has finally been solved!!!
Well I dont know about you, but whew, I am spent! Tell you what, now that we are at least seeing some modicum of honesty from you, we can now address the other issues you noted here. Particularly, why I believe insolvency does not equal collapse. I promise you that will be the first thing I adress tomorrow AM.
Until then, take a load off -- youve earned it. I am very proud of you :)
"contrarian said...
This post has been removed by the author.
7/14/11 6:43 PM"
WOW - a mere 13 minutes after you finally admit, Mr. turner is not credible, poof -- its gone.
Its almost as if you didnt want me to see it. Thank goodness I happened to be watching intently, and recorded it before that uncontrollable urge to delete overwhelmed you!
I know this must be hard on you. You, perhaps more than most seem incredibly adverse to admitting things you do not want to. But, still, even though it was only for 13 minutes, it was there. Baby steps Contrarian. Baby steps.
Tell you what, seeing how hard that was for you, im going to give you a little reward. I am gone for the evening, so you now have carte blanche to rip in to me any and and all ways you know how, and delete to your little hearts content. Have fun!!!
"contrarian said...
Anon, you have made up so much crap out of thin air, nothing you post is credible. I never made that statement you attribute to me."
Admitters remorse ehh? That 6:43 post of yours must have shook you to your core. OK, lets start over then. Ready?
So Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"Turner essentially said the stress test results were a sham and not to be trusted, and therefore the banks were basically insolvent. I simply quoted his statement to say that I agreed with what he was saying."
Thats fine. So noted. I can understand where you are coming from because you agree with his point.
Now, let me turn the page and ask you an entirely different question alltogether -- ready?
Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
I have no idea. Didn't know who Turner was when I posted the comment. Heard unsavory info about him afterwards. I don't know who is worse, you or Turner. :-)"
Well surely after you found out more about him, you formed an opinion on his credibility. So, im asking you, based on what you know about Hal Turner today - including his stories about the Amero, govt created swine flu, secret plot to murder Ariel Sharon, etc...
Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
I think John Edwards is a scum bag and wouldn't trust him as a friend because he obviously lies, but if I needed a trial lawyer to represent me in a medical malpractice case I would probably hire him."
Likewise, if you needed a janitor to clean your warehouse, you would probably hire Hal Turner.
But the question I am asking you now, is does Turner "obviously lie"? Would you "trust" him?
Put another way, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
"contrarian said...
I saw Edwards on TV all the time. I can make various judgments about Edwards. Don't know anything about Turner. Can't comment on Turner. Why are you obsessed with Turner?
7/15/11 7:57 PM"
Neither did anyone else here at the time.
However, when you linked to him and he said "I have a copy of the stress test and the banks are insolvent" many of us here did a little background investigation on him to see if his statement, particularly about him having a copy of the stress test was believable.
We quickly determined the following facts:
1. He is an unemployed janitor.
2. He claims to have proof the US is secretly shipping a new currency called the "Amero" to the Chinese.
3. He claims to have proof the govt created swine flu to extirmanate a large portion of the US public.
4. He claims to have been involved in a super secret mission to murder israeli PM Ariel Sharon and make it look like a stroke.
So now you know what we do Contrarian. Based on this information, we deemed Turner to not be a "credible" when he says "I have a copy of the stress test".
So, now that you know what we do, do you find Hal Turner to be credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
Anon,
I don't care"
But I do. As did John Fontain. As did Scott. As did Leroy. As did everyone who asked you, over and over again, this very simple question Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
I simply find it amazing that the lengths to which you will go to avoid answering this very simple question. 37 posts, over 3 days, and yet you still do whatever you can to avoid admitting something that you clearly do not want to.
We have established, it does not matter to you -- its the principal, not the person. We have established that you knew nothing about Turner at the time you posted it. We have established that the banks are insolvent. We have established a multitude of issues here.
Yet, one remains. It is the same one I asked you about 3 days and 37 posts ago, and which I again ask you now. Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No.
"contrarian said...
Then you, John Fontain, Leroy, and anyone else who cares needs to enter a treatment center and find out why you care so much. You all obviously have a mental disorder. :-)"
Not so much a disorder as it is a compulsion -- or in my case an obsesson with a principle. In this case its holding people accountable for their foolishness.
Its the equivalent of suing someone for defrauding you out of a mere $10. It may not be a good use of your time to sue for a mere $10, but if you value the principal that much, it is indeed "worth it".
And in that same vein, I come to you, seeking one of two things first and foremost an answer to the question, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No? And like I said before, if you do answer this question, this will be the first small step toward a more genteel relationship between you and I. This is your peace offering, should you choose to take it.
However, should you choose not to answer. Should you continue to do everything in your power to torque, twist, evade, etc, I will continue to make your online existence here miserable.
Clearly, there is something about this question that bothers you -- otherwise you would have long run away and hidden the way you normally do when I am seeking to hold you accountable. Yet you continue to stay here -- continue to do everything in your power not to answer the question. This pleases me...
As such, I continue to see how long I can keep you wriggling on the line. I continue to see how long you will do anything in your power to avoid admitting something you desperately do not want to admit.
Keep in mind though, you could end your agony at any time. You could answer, and stand by that answer as you did on 7/14 @6:43 pm, and that would be the end of it. That would be the end of the Hal Turner question as we could put it into the "asked and answered" column.
Or, you could continue to evade me, and continue to have me hound you about this so long as this blog shall exist. The choice is yours Contrarian, and if this is the way you want to continue to exist on this blog, I am more than happy to oblige you. However, if you want to permanently end this, tell me, tell us all. is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no
"Contrarian said...
WOW! You really think you have the power to do that? REALLY?"
Pretty much. You obviously do not like this line of questioning. It bothers you enough such that you feel compelled to respond and tell me how you "do not care" or "it doesnt matter" etc. Anything other than answer...
Like a puppet on a string. It seems apparent that all I have to do to spring you into action is to ask you something you do not want to answer such as:
Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?,
So dance now for me pupptet, dance!!!
"You are essentially threatening to continue stalking me. In case you are unaware, that is against the law. Should your hostility directed at me continue, I will notify law enforcement."
Oh please. This is a public forum, and I am asking you a question about a 3rd party. The law usually prohibits obscene, lewd or lascivious language. Or in some states, threats of bodily harm. If anything, by "notifying law enforcement", you are risking malicious prosecution (civil).
"Contrarian said...We discussed this matter until it was beat to death. There is nothing more I have to say about it."
Beat to death? Really? Your responses thus far included (1) Iceland, Ireland & Greece (2) bank insolvency (3) how you "dont care" (4) it doesnt matter to you who says it, just what they say and (5) John Edwards.
Nothing more to say about it huh? OK, if so, just go ahead and run away like you normally do. Until then, I will continue to ask is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
Sorry Contrarian, I did not log on during the few fleeting minutes that your 11:32 and 11:37 posts existed. Out of curiosity, what is your motivation for posts that exist for such a brief time that no one is able to see them?
Also, im curious, perhaps you answered the question, but I did not see it. As such, I hate to do it, but I need to ask, once again, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
"contrarian said...
P.s.,
I have had to remove my comments all this time BECAUSE you have been a predator, stalking me. That should have been a clue, but obviously you have little, if any, social awareness."
I understand thats your stated motivation, but I dont believe that you are able to follow the logical ball here.
For example, at 11:32 and 11:37 you want to tell me something, but at the same time, you dont want me to actually see it. How is that supposed to work?
Isnt there a way to track deleted comments? Perhaps that is what he is hoping to accomplish?
"Corey said...
Isnt there a way to track deleted comments? Perhaps that is what he is hoping to accomplish?"
Hard to say. If that was his motivation, (i.e. something that can be seen) then it would be easiest done by leaving the comment visible. Its very strange.
Whats even stranger is that for some reason, he has yet to run away which is his normal M.O. There seems to be something about this question that he seems drawn to somehow respond to, while yet not actually giving a yes or no response. For example, watch this -- lets see what happens...
Hey Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or no?
Contrarian,
As much as I enjoy the banter, you could put an end to it by:
Simply not responding.
Ceasing to put out ridiculous statements that you are ill-equipted to defend (because they are indefensible).
ADMITTING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG.
You are not being stalked; merely being held accountable - not for mere predictions, as yours are not predictions. They are statements of fact.
Your rampant deletions make you look ridiculous. If you mean something you say, then leave it up.
Best to leave the crystal balls to the con artists.
Contrarian,
The "real" issue is not Turner. It's an entire history of claims, denials and deletions.
"Contrarian said...It also includes predatory harassment, known as bullying. And that is essentially what you have been doing for several years and you have now admitted you intend to continue doing."
No, it doesnt. I pulled the language from the statute § 18.2-152.7:1 Go look it up yourself.
"Contrarian said...And, it is not civil it is criminal and it will be prosecuted by law enforcement, so good luck accusing them of malicious prosecution. And it doesn't matter what country you are in."
Clearly you have no clue what I am talking about. If I was subject to prosecution, it was because of something you told them. Given the statute, I am confident I could get Nolle Prossed.
At that point, after looking at the police report you filed (which you cannot delete), I can then decide if not the police, but you, personally can be held liable for malicious prosecution (civil) based upon your police report.
Bottom line -- be very very careful with where you go with this Contrarian.
"Va_Investor said...
Contrarian,
The "real" issue is not Turner. It's an entire history of claims, denials and deletions."
Agreed. And as I noted waaaay back in the beginning of this thread, its one thing to say something which turns out to be incorrect. In those instances, why not admit it and move on?
In Contrarian's case, my guess is despite his claim of being "the first one to admit I am wrong", the reality is there is no one, I repeat no one on this board who would sink to the depths he would sink to avoid saying those 3 simple little words "I...was...wrong..."
I mean, we have a whole history of predictions of catastrophic proportions from him -- many of which have already failed, and many of which will fail in the next year or two. These are near and dear to his heart. The basis of why he believes what he believes.
Thus, rather than admit he was wrong on any of those, I threw him a softball...is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No? The whole Hal Turner debacle was immaterial to him. It was a throw away comment "this guy has the Stress test and it says the banks are insolvent" that he quickly could have distanced himself from.
At the time 2 and 1/2 years ago, when pretty much everyone questioned the credibility of Mr. Turner, Contrarian could have very easily have saved face by saying "While Turner may not be credible, and may not have a copy of the stress test, it simply doesnt matter because the banks shall implode, collapse, doom, glug, glug, glug..." etc. Essentially, the usual stuff he always says.
Instead, when presented with damning evidence that Hal Turner is a serial liar and completely untrustworthy, he torqued, twisted, flailed, and did everything in his power to avoid admittin the simple fact that Hal Turner is NOT credible. It was an incredible display, and a true test of Contrarian's character. I simply could not believe what lengths Contrarian would go to to avoid saying somethig he doesnt want to say.
I figured that must be embarassed at the time, so I brought it up again now, 2.5 years later, when memories have faded and many bloggers of the past are gone, in the hopes that he could now admit what he could not admit back then. Yet, as the 50+ posts of this thread can attest to, Contrarian is simply incapable of admitting something he does not want to, then, now, or ever.
Anon,
He filed a police report? Wow.
As one who has truly been stalked online, I find this incredulous.
My personal stalker said the most vile disgusting things. Calling me the worst name I can think of - over and over. This in response to anything and everything I posted. He was a true creeper. No police report, but craig finally banned that "one" of his many handles. He is one very disturbed individual.
"Va_Investor said...
Anon,
He filed a police report? Wow.
As one who has truly been stalked online, I find this incredulous.
My personal stalker said the most vile disgusting things. Calling me the worst name I can think of - over and over. This in response to anything and everything I posted. He was a true creeper. No police report, but craig finally banned that "one" of his many handles. He is one very disturbed individual."
VAI -- I need to get out ahead of this thing...I want to state for the record that Contrarian HAS NOT filed a police report. I thought that was clear. But if not, if I gave you or anyone that impression, I am sorry. Again, Contrarian has not filed a report.
Contrarian was simply saying if my line of questioning continues, he may "notify law enforcement". My guess is Contrarian said that as a mere bluff, in hopes I would not ask him about Hal Turner again. I am also guessing that Contrarian does not know that I am a lawyer and that I am not scared of his baseless threats, in large part because I know that my questions are so far from any sort of "cyberstalking" or "cyberbullying" statute, that its not even funny.
Again, I think this was a mere bluff from Contrarian. However, I also wanted to let him know that if in the 1% chance he did follow through and contact authorities, he could face a civil action in the form of malicious prosecution.
I also dont think Contrarian understood what malicious prosecution meant. Ive actually had a case where a guy (lets call him the "Accuser") was ticked off at my client and filed a police report, accusing my client of trespass. Law enforcement initially pursued it, but quickly determined that it was not tresspass, but simply a case where the Accuser was really streeeetching the facts in his police report.
At that point, my client turned around and filed a claim for malicious prosecution (civil) against the Accuser, and ended up getting a big judgment against him.
My guess is Contrarian didnt know that he could be subject to potential civil penalties. As such, my guess is this will be the first last and only time we hear Contrarian suggest, even as a bluff that he will "notify law enforcement".
God I love knowing how Ive gotten you worked up into a tizzy. Triple post? I love it!!!
"contrarian said...
And, it explains your omnipotence as to why you feel you can force me to make a judgement about someone I know nothing about."
Once again, I am going to give you every fact you need to know about Hal Turner so you can make a judgment. Ready:
1. He is an unemployed janitor, now in jail.
2. He claims to have proof the US is secretly shipping a new currency called the "Amero" to the Chinese. His evidence was an Amero coin that turns out anyone can buy online from an artist Daniel Carr.
3. He claims to have proof the govt created swine flu to extirmanate a large portion of the US public. He has no evidence to support this claim.
4. He claims to have been involved in a super secret mission to murder israeli PM Ariel Sharon and make it look like a stroke. He has no evidence to support his claim.
5. He claims to have had an advance copy of the stress test. He promised to provide it, but never did.
You now know everything you need to know. Make a judgment. Is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
"contrarian said...
I do not consider you a credible source. I would need more information from a number of reliable sources to make a judgment on Hal Turner. I also do not intend on spending the time researching Hal Turner."
you will not spend 5 minutes researching him, yet you will spend days telling me why it doesnt matter...
OK -- lets try this then. I know you are capable of handling hypotheticals. Lets try one here. Ready?
Assume you had done the research and it was obvious items #1-5 were true. IF so, would you deem Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
P.s. I know you will try to spin your way out of not answering this either -- im just very curious to see how you do it.
"contrarian said...
Let's try it this way:
You tell me: Is Hal Turner credible?
Then, whatever your answer is, I will consider final and binding!
How does that sound?
7/18/11 1:42 PM"
I think so -- if I understand what you are trying to say here. Let me try to (for lack of a better term) put words in your mouth.
Would you agree to the following statement:
"Contrarian said...
While it simply doesnt matter in the slightest if Hal Turner is credible or not, because the banks are all insolvent anyway, yes, if the majority of what I have now heard about Hal Turner was in fact true, then I would agree, Hal Turner is not credible."
Is that fair?
Also, you would have to agree not to delete your consent to this statement.
How does that sound?
This whole thread is gold.
hahahaha.
My $0.02
"Contrarian said...Then I will accept your judgment about Turner as final and binding because you seem to be a subject matter expert on Turner."
I am very sorry Contrarian. I am going to have to "stick" here. I have given you two reasonable alternatives to consider:
1. Assume you had done the research and it was obvious items #1-5 were true. IF so, would you deem Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
2. Adopt the following which you will not delete -"Contrarian said...
While it simply doesnt matter in the slightest if Hal Turner is credible or not, because the banks are all insolvent anyway, yes, if the majority of what I have now heard about Hal Turner was in fact true, then I would agree, Hal Turner is not credible."
Also, if you wish, option #3 you can give me an alternative statement regarding the credibility of Hal Turner for me to review. That might work too.
Again, sorry, but I simply have to stick here. I have met you more than halfway on a very simple matter of fact that should have been "asked and answered" in 5 minutes time. We are now going on 4 days and counting.
Please do not misinterpret the tone of this post. I feel we are on the verge of a breakthrough...I have more than met you halfway...it is simply up to you to go the rest of the distance.
Whoops! That deleted comment above was from my sockpuppet. that should have been mine. Anyway, as I was saying Contrarian -- alternatively, you could affirm that you made this post on July 14 at 6:43 pm:
"contrarian said...
No, Turner is not credible. I did not know who Turner was when I posted the comment, but that does not change one thing about WHY I posted the quote from Turner.
I quoted Turner on what he said about the stress test results because I agreed with what he said.
The fact Turner (like you) may be a scum bag does not change my view of the stress test or the fact I agreed with what Turner said about the stress test, whether he (like you) was telling the truth or not.
If he wasn't telling the truth, I was not aware of it when I posted the comment. That doesn't change what he said in that the banks are insolvent which you now concede.
I was talking about principals -- the issue regarding the solvency of the banks (or lack thereof) -- and you were talking about personalities -- specifically Turners credibility (or lack thereof). One thing has nothing to do with the other, but, again, you don't seem to grasp that simple concept.
Start sticking to principals and not personalities, you worthless idiot. :-)
7/14/11 6:43 PM"
I know you are now saying "I made it up", and I am willing to let you get away with that as "admitters remorse" because it only existed for 13 minutes before you deleted it. If it helps, I am sorry that I was able to see and capture this comment before you had a chance to delete it. I understand it is very hard for you to stand by a comment like this.
So again, if you want you can just affirm the above boldface post as yours and this can all be over as it nearly was 4 days ago...
If any of my options in the post above does not work, does this option work for you?
"contrarian said...
No breakthrough.
We simply agree to not agree. But, that is the final word, so it is now behind us.
7/18/11 3:18 PM"
It is most certainly not behind us. If you do not agree, the question, as originally posed in this thread shall continue unabated.
Specifically, Contrarian, is Hal Turner credible? Yes or No?
Post a Comment