Sponsored Links
Flip Videos
Loading...

Time To Take Our Medicine, Bring on the Foreclosures Says Jim The Realtor


“When I come into a house with buyers, I start picking it apart,” says San Diego’s Jim Klinge, known on the internet as ‘Jim the Realtor,’ a wise-cracking real estate agent who posts his honest, painful, and sometimes hilarious assessment of bank-owned properties on his Youtube channel: youtube.com/jimtherealtor. While both the Bush and Obama administration have advocated programs aimed at keeping people in their homes, Klinge argues that this is the exact wrong approach and is only prolonging the agony in the housing market. “If they wanted to do what was best for the market, they would just unleash the floodgates and let it rip,” says Klinge. “It would cause a frenzy of buying to see all of these bank deals, and people would come running.” Reason.tv met up with Klinge for a walkthrough of a bank-owned property in North San Diego County, where he pointed out some of the issues with the home and talked about the past, present and future of the housing market. When does he think the market will bounce back and bring values back up to peak levels? “We need to be prepared for it being never,” he says. “I hate this whole investment thing. Buy a house because you like it and you want to raise a family. The good news is, I think today’s buyer is exactly that.” About 4 minutes. Interview by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Paul Detrick. Edited by Weissmueller. Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when
Video Rating: 4 / 5


25 Responses to “Time To Take Our Medicine, Bring on the Foreclosures Says Jim The Realtor”

  • 666sigma:

    Jim the Realtor should be in Washington knocking some sense into Obama. To repeat the same mistake as Bush and Greenspan when the result is known is the ultimate sign of stupidity.

  • nottinmatterz2day:

    @1:00…holding a shotgun mic in hand….come on

  • Aeschylus:

    The house of my highschool years was built in 1989 and quite a fancy one for the time. When I saw that kitchen and that shower, I said “oh, nice!” …That was right before he said “dated”. :)

  • fitobcnfito:

    If state did not bail out banks, they would need to place in the market those properties they own, and ther will be more offer, in best conditions, and at lower prices.

  • MilwaukeeF40C:

    Both consumers and lenders made bad choices and neither should have been bailed out. The mortgage payments are not the whole consideration of affordability. A thirty year mortgage involves a much higher cost in interest than a fifteen year mortgage. Those with the thirty year mortgage are now more susceptible to being ‘underwater’, and the size of the house doesn’t make up for it.

  • MilwaukeeF40C:

    People want their money to be safe in banks, but they are not entitled to it at the expense of taxpayer money and reduced options in the market for everyone else. People have the right to choose whatever they want, only if someone else voluntarily provides it. The moral way for banks to be secure financial institutions is by competing for clients through providing a reliable service. Government backing and regulation create moral hazard. There are also sources of financing besides banks.

  • takerdust:

    those banks probably want to sell their houses for 20% higher than it should be

  • uwmbigb:

    You failed pretty hard there …not much more to say troll.

  • PolitcalIslam:

    That was a cüte little smartphone typo. Lulz… The irony… We still know you never worked for Merrill Lynch unless, of course, you are an illiterate Buffalonian fucktard or something.

  • gman68137:

    Someone who is foreclosed is not going to be homeless. They’re going to be downsized or renting.

  • dubified89:

    Because preventing it artificially pushes up the prices of houses so that they’re less affordable and it’s worse for everyone.

  • httm241:

    foreclosure makes more homeless people why do you want it

  • jvolstad:

    Honest and Realtor are not words I would expect to see in the same sentence.

  • uwmbigb:

    LOL and anyone who has ever been employed at all should know the difference between an employER and an employEE. I worked there, not owned the place fuckwit – thats employee try again. Fucking fail haha.

  • ShatterNWO:

    I’m glad I wasn’t the only who thought that house was nice, I was beginning to feel like white trash.

  • ShatterNWO:

    Or stop federally insuring everyone’s deposits and banks have an incentive to care about their depositors.

  • UTubekookdetector:

    Getting rid of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HUD & the FHA would be any reasonable person’s response to the housing market. Unfortunately, the central-planners aren’t going to let the housing market hit its natural bottom. They’re going to continue to try subsidizing those underwater & the FHA is going to continue to gobble up loans. They’re setting us up for another bubble.

  • TreachMarkets:

    Any chance of Reason discussing the role of the Federal Reserve in this housing mess anytime soon? It kind of stands out, how this topic is avoided by the beltway libertarians.

  • Loathomar:

    Why should people have the choice in banks? Investment banks give a higher rate of return, and have little government regulation. Standard banks have lots of regulation but accounts are backed by government, if standard banks can’t compete do to regulation, so be it, but people want a safe place for there money. Without security of standard banks, people stop putting money in banks, then you get no loans and the economy freezes up, and it really doesn’t take much for a run on banks, just fear.

  • vegaswolf:

    “Never waste a good crisis..” H. Clinton paraphrased. or was it R. Emmanuel? whatever

  • kclaytor2:

    What’s unreasonable is how he talks about dated. It is not sustainable to the planet to keep ripping out perfectly good things, and replacing them with other things. I was offended by him acting like that beautiful house was no good because it was only 20 years old. Ridiculous.

  • Loathomar:

    Right… Cause those who either lost their homes or are now underwater had no cost… Oh wait… Banks who gives the loans and had the title of the homes are the ones that should be finally accountable. But my point was that your claim of the 15 year schedules be prevalent is not a question of home prices, but a question of choice. People could buy 1800sq with a 15yr not the choice a 2400sq with a 30yr, but the question of “affordability” is not relevant, as they have the same price per month.

  • MilwaukeeF40C:

    People deal with banks at their own risk. It doesn’t matter if they are separate or not. A bank can be thought of as a “safe place to put money” by building a reputation of solid finances and trustworthy accounting. FDIC should be ditched, too. The only regulation necessary is regarding actual fraud.

  • kmelfina:

    Alright so we bring back Glass-Steagall, then again I wouldn’t trust it with politicians like Barney Frank at the time (before the crisis) ‘asking’ the banks to give home loans to people. I still don’t understand how regulation on banks would help it or if it is a banks’ responsibility to “not crash” when the loans they were giving weren’t backed up by real savings.

  • MilwaukeeF40C:

    When people make an unwise choice, they should eat the cost. If they go in to debt consuming more than they can afford, and don’t plan for emergencies, tough shit. A crash would have been better in the long run than contributing to the entitlement mentality.

Leave a Reply

hogan outlet hogan outlet online louboutin pas cher louboutin pas cher tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet