You see this watch? It has so many diamonds in it, the hands can't move...

March 22, 2006 3:18 AM

The Secret Agent- whilst talk has gone on for many a year about things like 'bubbles' and 'bursting' on the topic of real estate, never before has it been seriously considered that regular offer-withholding, mortgage-falsifying, and price-gouging to the tune of £50,000 by real estate agents might be affecting the housing market altogether. I challenge metafilter to make the links, and see who's first on that merry conspiracy theory bandwagon. And why is it that people who work with selling or developing buildings are just, well, evil?
posted by jrengreen (65 comments total)

Money attracts corruption. Real estate is in a huge bubble; the rot in the mortage-finance system is immense. The shakeout, when it comes, will be immense.
posted by Malor at 3:25 AM on March 22, 2006

... equally immense. I hate it when I words out.
posted by Malor at 3:25 AM on March 22, 2006

That having been said, the image that springs into my mind when someone says 'mortgage' involves a massive bank with big marble walls, and stern looking people with reedy voices and tight lips sitting behind ivory desks, going through my life's financial details in a second-and-a-half before declaring that, "sadly, we cannot approve this loan", before eating a kitten and laughing.

Why is it that these real-estate types don't seem to have any trouble whipping up a false identity, and coming out of the bank with a buy-1-get-1-free deal on their mortgages? Do the banks have a special deal with with estate agents? Does that even make any sense?
posted by jrengreen at 3:31 AM on March 22, 2006

No. No, it probably doesn't.
posted by jrengreen at 3:31 AM on March 22, 2006

Its a universal phenomenon real estate = money; money attracts the soulless. Of course, there are exceptions, as there are in law and finance, but they are the exceptions!
posted by ParisParamus at 3:38 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm not surprised that the undercover reporter found dodgy practises at Foxtons. Foxtons really freaked me out when I was flat hunting. Their offices really do look like wine bars, and their staff are all young and beautiful. Their fleet of branded mini coopers parked around the corner (up the street, where the parking is free) look like a swarm of radioactive insects.

I was shown round four flats either out of my price range or not meeting my criteria (2 double bed, separate lounge, within walking distance of the tube - not really complicated, eh?). And the hard sell was amazing. I spoke to their Balham office and within the week had had calls from agents at six other offices, offering all sorts of unsuitable properties. When I told them I couldn't afford the rent anymore, I thought the calls would stop. And then came the offer of a mortgage -- can't find somewhere affordable to rent madam? Have you considered buying? We can find you a veryreasonable mortgage deal. Our independent financial advisors have helped out many people in your situation.

shudder. lizards.
posted by handee at 4:01 AM on March 22, 2006

Foxtons are wankers - I would ask to see certain properties only to turn up and be shown completly different (and unsuitable) ones and always with some flimsy excuse. Was also fed a lot of scare talk about how there was no one bedroom flats on the market because "...the Poles have bought them all" and I should jump at what little they had. I ended up avoiding using them even if they had properties I liked as I found the guy so unpleasant.
posted by oh pollo! at 4:23 AM on March 22, 2006

I soon discovered his mortgage brokers work closely with Foxtons' agents. They openly discuss potential buyers' budgets so they can squeeze as much money out of them as possible.

Foxtons, eh?
posted by three blind mice at 4:32 AM on March 22, 2006

I challenge metafilter to make the links

It's your FPP, how about you make the links?
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 4:53 AM on March 22, 2006

Thanks, drill... I was going to say the same thing. This is basically a one-link screed... I may agree with the sentiment, but there's nothing here...
posted by jpburns at 5:20 AM on March 22, 2006

Essentially a one-linker, but still good stuff as far as I'm concerned. Interesting article I wouldn't otherwise have seen. The backlink and the 'evil' link were superfluous, but not annoying.
posted by Malor at 5:27 AM on March 22, 2006

If you can watch the programme, you should (I can't find it on the bbc's site, but I'm sure it's there somewhere). It's a first class piece of undercover consumer journalism. Foxtons come out pretty badly. Not sure it has anything to do with bubbles though: I think it's more about corporate culture.
posted by rhymer at 5:50 AM on March 22, 2006

And why is it that people who work with selling or developing buildings are just, well, evil?

Maybe because it's the kind of industry that requires relatively little education but lots of hard dealing, the kind of industry in which a big, pushy drop-out with street smarts and connections can rise to the top. What are the big mafia industries -- gambling, garbage, trucking, garment, and construction?
posted by pracowity at 5:51 AM on March 22, 2006

Forging signatures and the like is bad and illegal, of course, but I'm puzzled at the indignation about getting as much money as they can from buyers—isn't that what they're supposed to do? Is there some magic land where salesmen say "No, no, I won't let you pay that much, I can see it would put a strain on your finances and I insist you offer much less"?
posted by languagehat at 6:02 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm puzzled at the indignation about getting as much money as they can from buyers

Isn't the problem that they are arranging false estimates from third parties?

The manager of a Chard estate agency branch in Fulham, west London, showed us round a flat worth more than £190,000. Yet if our developer was happy to grease his palm to the tune of £10,000, he'd tell the owner to take the offer of £140,000.

So they convince the owner to sell for an artificially low amount, and then they sell it for full price and pocket the difference (minus the bribe paid to the estimator). Something like that.
posted by pracowity at 6:12 AM on March 22, 2006

I think real estate agents in the UK really are a shady bunch, in the US it feels a little different. I encountered the same thing with recruiters, the ones I dealt with in the UK just seemed shady money grubbers while the US ones, while still money grubbers at least appeared to have my interests at heart.
posted by zeoslap at 6:13 AM on March 22, 2006

Wait a second! You mean middlemen taking a cut of a deal may be unscrupulous and not have your best interests at heart? Good thing my insurance broker has made sure I have enough coverage to hire a lawyer if any of these things ever happen to me.

There is only ONE person in the world who has your best interests at heart. For fifty bucks I'll tell you who that person is.
posted by srboisvert at 6:32 AM on March 22, 2006

I'm renting through Foxtons in Balham. *waves to handee, if still in the area* They're just as rubbish. Technically, I'm squatting - the bloke who had the room I'm now in has never been removed from the contract, and I've never been added. They sent through new contracts for me to sign, but with the old guy's name on and the rent increased. Even though we've not signed, they've charged us £200 for the "service". We can't even get them to replace a broken hoover!
posted by flameproof at 6:34 AM on March 22, 2006

"Coffee is for closers, Stanley."
posted by klangklangston at 6:51 AM on March 22, 2006

And why is it that people who work with selling or developing buildings are just, well, evil?

Because that's where the MONEY is.
posted by HTuttle at 6:52 AM on March 22, 2006

My name is Tom Cranker and I'm a jolly banker
I'm a jolly banker, jolly banker am I,
posted by iamck at 7:04 AM on March 22, 2006

Look, folks, the shock and outrage in the article are a rhetorical device.

You don't do an undercover investigation of an industry you think is clean. There's no point. Obviously, this reporter expected the mortgage industry to be filthy, and he found exactly what he expected.

He sounds shocked in the article, not because he's a rube, but because he knows it makes for more persuasive writing.

(And for all these shady dealings are perfectly predictable, they're also immoral and illegal. So it's a Good Thing that this guy has chosen to write as persuasively as he can about them. If that means affecting surprise, then so be it.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:05 AM on March 22, 2006

Isn't the problem that they are arranging false estimates from third parties?

That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the start of the article:

My boss congratulates me on getting an offer on a flat that has been overvalued by £60,000. The newly-wed young couple viewing the property are stretched to their financial limit. But my manager is happy.

Well, of course he's happy, why wouldn't he be? More importantly, what does it mean to say it's "overvalued"? If someone paid the asking price, it wasn't overvalued. The value of a thing is what someone's willing to pay for it. (In economic terms, obviously; I'm not talking about immortal poetry or whatever.)
posted by languagehat at 7:08 AM on March 22, 2006

He sounds shocked in the article, not because he's a rube, but because he knows it makes for more persuasive writing.

Judging by the name (Anna Adams) and picture, I suspect the writer is a she.
posted by languagehat at 7:09 AM on March 22, 2006

Generally, yes, the value of a thing is what someone's willing to pay for it. But colluding to prop up market values is also against the law, even if people are willing to pay the high prices that result.

Judging by the name (Anna Adams) and picture, I suspect the writer is a she.

True dat. Shoulda read the byline. My apologies to Ms. Adams.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:14 AM on March 22, 2006

That Anna Adams chick is really hot.

And suprisingly, I'd never heard of the turky quake.
posted by delmoi at 7:15 AM on March 22, 2006

We close on our new home today. Thanks guys, here comes the remorse.
posted by tomplus2 at 7:22 AM on March 22, 2006

Forging signatures and the like is bad and illegal, of course, but I'm puzzled at the indignation about getting as much money as they can from buyers—isn't that what they're supposed to do? Is there some magic land where salesmen say "No, no, I won't let you pay that much, I can see it would put a strain on your finances and I insist you offer much less"?

I think the idea is that if you lie about something to get that deal then there is a problem.
posted by delmoi at 7:24 AM on March 22, 2006

but I'm puzzled at the indignation about getting as much money as they can from buyers—isn't that what they're supposed to do?

yes -- the estate agent represents the seller (something buyers often forget), so he should try to get the best possible price, but without artifically means such as making properties appear scarce, and inventing competing bids.

Also, when the buyer has a mortgate offer from the estate agent representing the seller, there is some real conflict-of-interest, as the seller's agent knows *exactly* how much the buyer can afford..

(But to be honest, anyone who gets a morgate offer from the seller's agent is asking for trouble. I have also heard of buyers using surveyors recommended by the seller's agent...)
posted by nielm at 7:37 AM on March 22, 2006

Interesting and timely, this as I just 'interviewed' with Foxtons last evening for a position as a buyer's agent.

This article has definitely reaffirmed my decision to say, "thanks, but no thanks." if offered the job. I don't regret the experience, but I don't think I would be happy there.
posted by obeetaybee at 7:40 AM on March 22, 2006

I think the idea is that if you lie about something to get that deal then there is a problem.

without artifically means such as making properties appear scarce

I'm truly puzzled. Surely you guys aren't under the impression that aside from a few bad apples, sellers historically have been honest about the qualities of the merchandise they sell, and have refrained from misrepresenting the market? "No man cries stinking fish." Don't we all learn from an early age to discount what people trying to sell us stuff say? "This was only driven by a little old lady who drove it to church on Sunday..." "Guinness is good for you!" "Four out of five doctors recommend..." Come on, it's called salesmanship, and the answer isn't to demand fruitlessly that sellers be up-front and honest, it's to be skeptical consumers. If some brainless couple chooses to plunk down an extra £60,000 they couldn't afford when they could have gone across the street and gotten a far better deal, that's their fault, not the seller's.
posted by languagehat at 7:45 AM on March 22, 2006

Surely you guys aren't under the impression that aside from a few bad apples, sellers historically have been honest about the qualities of the merchandise they sell, and have refrained from misrepresenting the market?

I'm well aware of the corruption that a free market allows.
posted by iamck at 8:01 AM on March 22, 2006

Reputable mortgage firms won't give you a mortgage on an over-priced piece of real estate. They want to know the property is worth what they're lending.

This is a nice eye-opener, as I'm likely to be shopping for a house in the UK next year. If the BS is too deep, we'll stick to renting. Eventually, we'll be on to some place else, anyway.
posted by Goofyy at 8:08 AM on March 22, 2006

Don't we all learn from an early age to discount what people trying to sell us stuff say?

Come on, it's called salesmanship, and the answer isn't to demand fruitlessly that sellers be up-front and honest, it's to be skeptical consumers.


Languagehat: The examples you've chosen are largely straightforward consumer products. You have a list of choices - and you decide which product to buy aware of the cost (and, to an extent, quality) of other brands. Furthermore you know all the products are of a uniform quality. And this is a case of the middle-man trying to jack up the price (without telling the seller) and pocket the difference. A more accurate analogy might be a cornerstore owner falsely claiming a packet of crisps to be the prizewinning pack of a competition, and selling it to some naive fop for £3 instead of £1. He lies to get the extra money, and doesn't pass any of that back to the people who manufacture the crisps.


On preview, I'm struggling to see whether that makes any sense - although i'm sure I can count on being told :)

Basically, there's a difference between salesmanship and an outright con. And when one gives way to the other, our cynicism should give way to being proactive.
posted by jrengreen at 8:39 AM on March 22, 2006

At least in the US, in most states, home buyers can use a buyer agent, who actually does represent their best interests, not the seller's.
posted by agentmitten at 8:40 AM on March 22, 2006

Reputable mortgage firms won't give you a mortgage on an over-priced piece of real estate. They want to know the property is worth what they're lending. - Goofyy

So they can recover their investment if the worst happens and they have to foreclose.
posted by raedyn at 8:45 AM on March 22, 2006

At least in the US, in most states, home buyers can use a buyer agent, who actually does represent their best interests, not the seller's. - agentmitten

In Canada, too. Not everyone uses them, but I can't imagine why.

There is a bit of a weird situation with buyers agents, though, since their compensation is still directly tied to the price paid. My buyers agent explained that building a strong relationship with me so that I would come back to him next time, and provide referrals was more important to him than maximizing the commissions he made on this particular deal. This requires one to trust the integrity of their agent a fair amount.

In my case, I used a reputable agent who had won awards in the local business community and who came with a strong recommendation from a trusted source who had used him before, so felt okay using him. I was very satisfied with the results, felt no pressure from him to go for the more expensive homes or a particular area, or anything of that nature. As a result, I plan to use him in my next home purchase and have given him several strong recommendations. His combined commissions from our modest purchase plus those referrals are several times the commissions he would have earned had he pressured us to max out our borrowing room and us not referred him - and that's without counting the larger commissions he'll get from us next time we buy. But it only is like this because this particular agent has a long-term strategy and high personal integrity.

Short-term there is no incentive even for buyers agents to show you and promote more affordable homes with lower return for them, so you're trusting their reputation to propel them to do what they've promised.
posted by raedyn at 8:59 AM on March 22, 2006

> If the BS is too deep, we'll stick to renting.

We're fitting out an oxwagon and heading west where the land is free.

posted by jfuller at 9:07 AM on March 22, 2006

"Guinness is good for you!"

Please don't burst my bubble, ok?

I'm well aware of the corruption that a free market allows.

What does corruption have to do with this? And are you seriously suggesting that, say, a command economy would do a better job of distributing houses (or anything else)?
posted by me & my monkey at 9:13 AM on March 22, 2006

Languagehat— So, really, there should be no regulation against false advertisement or promoting patent medicine or ponzi schemes or etc.? Caveat emptor is a decent adage, but you seem to be sucking Greenspan's cock a little hard on this one.
posted by klangklangston at 9:18 AM on March 22, 2006

languagehat writes "More importantly, what does it mean to say it's 'overvalued'? If someone paid the asking price, it wasn't overvalued. The value of a thing is what someone's willing to pay for it. "

In real estate people talk about property being over valued if the nominal rental income of the unit won't cover the mortgage+taxes. Property where the IO ARM mortgage payment is $3000 and the rental income is $750 is over valued in the extreme but even a 25% down mortgage of $1000 for a property garnering $750 appears to be over valued. Every market is different of course so YMMV, but in the long term if rentals don't make money property depreciates. Property in many places in the US is way over valued, the correction is going to short and painful or long and uncomfortable.
posted by Mitheral at 9:44 AM on March 22, 2006

Enforcement of building codes and enforcement of financial laws - societal issues, these are, no? What good is the building code if no one follows it?

From the Evil link:

"Building Control responsibilities were delegated to local authorities where a mixture of incompetence and corruption ensured safety standards went unheeded."

Would you place architecture in this same group?
posted by tzelig at 9:52 AM on March 22, 2006

A more accurate analogy might be a cornerstore owner falsely claiming a packet of crisps to be the prizewinning pack of a competition

That's not an accurate analogy at all. There's no equivalent to "prizewinning" here. It would be like the cornerstore owner falsely claiming a packet of crisps to be the best, most unique packet of crisps ever, and you'd better buy it right now because supplies are limited and people will be rushing in any moment to offer more for it! Some people are suckers for the hard sell, and there's nothing to be done about it. That doesn't mean it's morally evil, or should be illegal, to try your best to sell stuff, including houses, to people.

What does corruption have to do with this? And are you seriously suggesting that, say, a command economy would do a better job of distributing houses (or anything else)?

My response exactly, except that I'm afraid we are dealing with someone who seriously thinks that a command economy would do a better job of distributing goods. Hey, it's worked out so well in the past!

In real estate people talk about property being over valued if the nominal rental income of the unit won't cover the mortgage+taxes.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the technical definition. That makes sense.

you seem to be sucking Greenspan's cock a little hard on this one.

Come back when you feel like having a discussion.
posted by languagehat at 10:29 AM on March 22, 2006

Freakonomics had a chapter on real estate agents selling homes. The thrust of it was, since they are paid only on commission, the work they put into the sale doesn't always equal a return on their personal investment of time and energy. Therefore, they are likely to push homeowners into accepting less-advantageous deals, just to get the deals done, period.
posted by frogan at 10:50 AM on March 22, 2006

One thing that makes the UK housing market worse is gazumping. It's illegal where I live, and I imagine it is in the US as well.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:43 AM on March 22, 2006

I just came in here to mention Freakonomics, frogan. Its real estate scenario is explained in more detail in the middle of the excerpt here.
posted by LeLiLo at 11:48 AM on March 22, 2006

"Come back when you feel like having a discussion."

Greenspan has said that governmental regulation has the effect of distorting a market away from reliance upon independently derived reputation, to the effect that people regard anything that passes governmental regulation as "safe" (this effect is especially noted in FDA regulation and in stock market regulation). His solution is to remove or reduce governmental regulation so that more "unsafe" products are sold, thus encouraging consumers to place more faith in corporate reputation, and less in the government's ability to screen good from bad.

By putting forth the laissez-faire argument that you did, you were endorsing a scheme that would leave us with patent medicine and ponzi schemes, and one that Greenspan has publicly favored repeatedly.

Hence, my comment about you being all up in his ballsack with regard to this issue. Would you care to disagree, or are you going to give me another cronish rejoiner?
posted by klangklangston at 11:54 AM on March 22, 2006

Hence, my comment about you being all up in his ballsack with regard to this issue.

I had no idea that agreeing with someone involved so much oral sex. This is going to cause all sorts of problems here in the office.

I suspect that the real problem with fellating Greenspan is that his responses are so ambiguous, you don't know if he's enjoying it or not.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:11 PM on March 22, 2006

You know who else smeared ideological opponents with scary evil people he claimed they were in bed with?


Hitler.


Come back when you stop sucking Hitler's dick.
posted by languagehat at 12:31 PM on March 22, 2006

If you have already decided that you need or want something, and you have already decided how much you want to pay for it (and it is a fair price), it will not take salesmanship to sell the product to you -- you'll simply purchase it if offered at the desired price. And, since nobody is forcing you to sell to that particular person, you don't have to sell at that price if you don't want to.

So, with that in mind:

Salesmanship: the art of convincing people they need something they don't need, want something they don't want, or should pay more than they should for something, using direct and indirect techniques of manipulation (including, but not limited to, lying), then convincing yourself that you're doing nothing wrong when you take advantage of those people.

In a sentence: "Hey, if they were stupid enough to fall for my salesmanship, then they deserve to get ripped off."
posted by davejay at 12:56 PM on March 22, 2006

Now, of course allowances should be made for convincing people that YOUR company is the one they should use, when several options are available to the purchaser -- that is an art form that can be executed without lying or cheating, and one that impresses the heck out of me
posted by davejay at 12:57 PM on March 22, 2006

Aww, LH, I expected a better retort from you. Perhaps your liberalization panty-sniffing has left you devoid of any ability to address an argument? I mean, I still know to go to you for the question of whether 'panty sniffing' should be hyphenated in that context, but that doesn't mean that your poorly reasoned economics arguments should be left to draw wayward children toward a philosophy of unregulated markets. C'mon, William Safire has that job already. Anything better than clichéd post-Godwin memebombs in your sanctimony sack?
posted by klangklangston at 1:49 PM on March 22, 2006

If you want better retorts from me, try making your points without gratuitous smears. And frankly, I can think of better ways to waste time than getting into long, pointless, unresolvable arguments about economics. I could tell you to go read Mises on why markets are efficient and governments can only muddy the waters, you could tell me that ignores human values and the positive role of government regulation, and neither of us would have our minds changed. Look, I once took for granted the same things you do; reading and talking to people who thought differently eventually changed my mind. Maybe if we hung out for a while, had some beers, opened some books and honestly discussed the opposing arguments, we'd get somewhere, but it ain't gonna happen here. So let's just agree to disagree, and the more you feel you can do without the insults, the happier the rest of us will be.
posted by languagehat at 1:56 PM on March 22, 2006

A more complete account of the the Freakonomics real estate scenario mention by frogan and lelilo can be found here.

jpburns : 'Thanks, drill... I was going to say the same thing. This is basically a one-link screed... I may agree with the sentiment, but there's nothing here...'

Completely agree, and the final link is a stretch, not much in common between British Estate agents and the fact that Turkish building laws are inadequately enforced. However, it did bring to mind Italy's problems with illegal construction which I first read about in Tobias Jones'The Dark Heart of Italy. The fact that the government occasionally grants building amnesties only increases the appeal of unauthorised construction.
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 2:13 PM on March 22, 2006

Alright! Alright! Drill: you've caught me. I struggled to make the links between how this sort of fraud and how it might affect the housing market because i simply couldn't find stuff about it. I panicked, and foolishly broadened the question beyond the resources I'd assembled. It was my second mefi post: I've learnt my lesson.

But while I do appreciate and take on board your criticism, I think smearing me twice (specifically quoting a reply to your original smear in order to do so) is a bit harsh - holding up these kind of standards for the metafilter community in a thread with so much phallic imagery in the comments section seems a little self-important.

Then again, there's probably an argument that the poor way I phrased the question was what invited gems like this:

Come back when you stop sucking Hitler's dick
posted by jrengreen at 3:10 PM on March 22, 2006

Nah, that wasn't you, that was a response to klangklangston's lovely "you seem to be sucking Greenspan's cock." And he doesn't grasp why I don't take him seriously.
posted by languagehat at 3:16 PM on March 22, 2006

probably ... the poor way I phrased the question was what invited gems like this: "Come back when you stop sucking Hitler's dick" - jrengreen

Don't worry chum, you did very well for someone so green (pun intended). At least you didn't have anyone respond withto your post with: if I don't see at least one flaccid, uncircumsized penis a day I feel insecure in my manhood. like someone else did today.
posted by raedyn at 3:20 PM on March 22, 2006

Would mobile homes (a.k.a. trailers) be any safer in an earthquake than cheaply-made cardhouses? I hear "manufactured housing" ain't great in tornadoes, but I don't know how the stresses differ.
posted by davy at 9:37 PM on March 22, 2006

You can download the Whistlerblower episode here.
posted by meehawl at 4:47 AM on March 23, 2006

"Nah, that wasn't you, that was a response to klangklangston's lovely "you seem to be sucking Greenspan's cock." And he doesn't grasp why I don't take him seriously."

Which you did seem to be doing. And then you made assumptions about what I take for granted, after a couple of old-man-on-the-internet retorts. So... how's it taste?

Or, more to the point, you had no problem being insulting about people who get ripped off due to illegal selling tactics, and put forth an incredulity that anyone should feel sympathy for them. While I generally respect your opinion, I don't think you're above being rebuked when your crotchety tone dovetails with a disregard for others. As for taking me seriously, I take your deigns as they come, though I'd have you remember that valid points can be made in vulgar manner even as it may give you the vapors to read them.
posted by klangklangston at 6:27 AM on March 23, 2006

Which you did seem to be doing.

I'm using a carrot-and-stick approach. To the extent you're making reasonable points and seem interested in dialogue, I'll respond appropriately. But I don't happen to feel like ignoring your over-the-top baiting. And don't give me that "vulgar" crap; I'm a big fan of vulgarity, but there's a difference between throwing in a fucking or shit here and there and saying "you seem to be sucking Greenspan's cock"—and then, when called on it, carrying it on with "being all up in his ballsack." That's not "vulgar," that's insulting, and for no good reason. I don't respond well to insults. (Funny, that; I should be in analysis, I guess.) And so is this "crotchety" and "vapors" crap. Why on earth should I respond well to that? You want to puke and fart and shake your little fists and still be treated as a responsible adult. I don't think so. Make up your mind and we'll talk, or exchange insults. Up to you

And just by the way, I never said word one about Greenspan, who I don't care for at all. So add "straw man" to your list of sins.
posted by languagehat at 6:49 AM on March 23, 2006

Boys! Really now.

*hands out rosaries, frowns sternly*
posted by raedyn at 8:01 AM on March 23, 2006

What does corruption have to do with this? And are you seriously suggesting that, say, a command economy would do a better job of distributing houses (or anything else)?

What do you call an economy that caps wealth and prevents concentration of power? You're the expert singing the ideals of a system (like all systems) that survives on lying and cheating.
posted by iamck at 8:02 AM on March 23, 2006

*apologizes to raedyn, says ten Hail Marys*
posted by languagehat at 8:51 AM on March 23, 2006

davy writes "Would mobile homes (a.k.a. trailers) be any safer in an earthquake than cheaply-made cardhouses? I hear 'manufactured housing' ain't great in tornadoes, but I don't know how the stresses differ"

Mobile homes fall off their foundations in many cases and can be damaged by that. (It may not be common knowledge but rarely are mobile homes left sitting on their tires/axles). If an earthquake resistant foundation tie is used they can fair better than stick framed SFD because of their lowered mass. That's a pretty big if.

PS: Many modern mobile homes are more tornado resistant than stick framed dwellings. Modern designs can be very resistant and because they are built on assembly lines tolerances can be better than in place stick homes. I've seen pictures of a F2 hitting a park and the pre mid 90s homes are kindling and the post mid 90s homes are essentially untouched.
posted by Mitheral at 9:28 AM on March 23, 2006