patrick.net

I was wondering why Obama admin was willing to "Act" outraged so much so to the point that Obama would be actively provoking Putin for his final days in office.
Then Yesterday it dawned on me. Why would Obama end the Wet Foot Dry Foot policy after his Cuban lovefest? Then it dawned on me, Obama is genuinely outraged at Russia. Russia did best Obama, and right smack dab in the middle of the Party Conventions. While Obama was parading around Cuba with is new found Comrades, and being crooned by Jay Z and Beyonce, and the Stones. Russia had them under Digital Surveillance their every move, communication, and meetings were being intercepted and recorded.
To rub salt in the wound, Obama boy comes back and pledges billions of dollars to Cuba's internet infrastructure. Poor poor Cuba they are so far behind, Obama fell right into their low tech high tech honey Trap.

Lawdy! Obama was hoo dood by the Who Do Man in Havana!

FortWayne says

So basically don't buy anything again till it blows over?

that's my plan!

joeyjojojunior says

Huh? You mean the one where they got 3MM more votes? That's an historic loss of epic proportions?

Hopeless. Really hopeless. The democrtats will just blame Putin, the electoral college and will continue to do what they've been doing. People don't learn.

joeyjojojunior says

Huh? You mean the one where they got 3MM more votes? That's an historic loss of epic proportions?

Considering it was against Trump: YES.

Heraclitusstudent says

joeyjojojunior says

Huh? You mean the one where they got 3MM more votes? That's an historic loss of epic proportions?

Considering it was against Trump: YES.

Exactly!!!

This is even worse than W. W was at least supported by his own party, some of the MSM and had, arguably, some charisma.

"Hopeless. Really hopeless. The democrtats will just blame Putin, the electoral college and will continue to do what they've been doing. People don't learn"

Don't be an idiot. I wasn't blaming the electoral college. My very next sentence put the blame where it belonged--on the candidate.

The point was that calling it an historic loss of epic proportions is ridiculous. And trying to pretend it's some monumental shift in US politics is similarly hyperbolic

"that's my plan!"

Good luck. I'm afraid your plan may, in reality, be to rent forever. And there's nothing wrong with that.

If you couldn't muster up the courage to buy in 2011-2013, I'm not really sure what you are waiting for?

The blame goes to the whole party and its followers who still don't recognize that the the party's polices are wrong. Clinton was just a symptom, not the desease.

It is an epic loss because it is a loss to Trump.

Logan Mohtashami says

Plenty to inventory to buy homes, but inventory needed for a mega crash... those are 2 different things

Why is inventory measured in months of supply and not in # of available units relative to # of people reaching 30 for example?

Low sales caused by high prices, + high rent prices relative to incomes, all mean there is largely a large deficit of units on the market, relative to the population. There is only 1 way to solve it: build more until the extra supply push the ridiculously high prices down.

joeyjojojunior says

The point was that calling it an historic loss of epic proportions is ridiculous.

The upset democrats sure are acting as if it was an epic loss.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why is inventory measured in months of supply and not in # of available units relative to # of people reaching 30 for example?

Post 1996 ( The U.S.) is no longer a natural 6 month inventory country. However, the thesis that there isn't enough homes to buy, that inventory is keeping sales back... was always a terrible one... because housing people are predictable, then the great flaw in logic with sales and mortgage demand numbers.

Plus tons of inventory isn't even accounted for as the home sells with in 1-3 weeks of being in the market place

Home sales are at cycle highs, inventory is at cycle lows.. I can't even make this up anymore, the housing people have lied to every for years on this

I am just begging more and more for their hole to be dug deeper :-)

His theory is that lack of inventory is driving prices up. Because that's what people care about--price. Nobody cares about sales volume except you.

I was hoping 2014 was a good data example for them to lose this thesis as inventory rose, rates fell and demand went no where.. this is a demand story not a supply story.

So, 2016 data just slammed this thesis to the grave as inventory fell to cycle lows but home sales hit cycle highs.

"I was hoping 2014 was a good data example for them to lose this thesis as inventory rose, rates fell and demand went no where.. this is a demand story not a supply story. So, 2016 data just slammed this thesis to the grave as inventory fell to cycle lows but home sales hit cycle highs."

So, lack of demand is causing prices to rise? Please tell me more. That's Nobel prize worthy economic analysis.

joeyjojojunior says

His theory is that lack of inventory is driving prices up. Because that's what people care about--price. Nobody cares about sales volume except you.

No, all you people care about is price..

Because you're investors, you don't care about economics, this is why this site is terrible in reading economic data

"No, all you people care about is price.. Because you're investors, you don't care about economics, this is why this site is terrible in reading economic data"

No, because we're consumers interested in buying a house.

joeyjojojunior says

So, lack of demand is causing prices to rise?

Inventory channels are pricing power points not demand

"Inventory channels are pricing power points not demand"

So, you agree with Herc than. Lack of inventory is causing prices to rise.

joeyjojojunior says

No, because we're consumers interested in buying a house.

Housing is the cost of shelter .. for those who have the capacity to own the debt, this has been the single worst demand curve for mortgage buyers ever for both new and existing homes but the best from cash buyers

#Demographics

Hence the 2020-2024 thesis

"Housing is the cost of shelter .. for those who have the capacity to own the debt, this has been the single worst demand curve for mortgage buyers ever for both new and existing homes but the best from cash buyers"

So, let me try to help you. You're saying we have the worst demand but yet prices are rising. Even you can't argue that that means we don't have enough inventory.

joeyjojojunior says

So, you agree with Herc than. Lack of inventory is causing prices to rise.

There is no natural 6 month inventory channel anymore post 1996 because home prices took off, much harder to move up post 1996

In fact the first time we saw 6 month inventory was Feb of 2006, the game has changed post 1996, all the data is there to read, the problem is I don't believe you can read it properly

joeyjojojunior says

You're saying we have the worst demand but yet prices are rising.

First

New home sales is still at a recession levels even after one of the longest expansions on record with the lowest interest rate on record

"There is no natural 6 month inventory channel anymore post 1996 because home prices took off, much harder to move up post 1996. In fact the first time we saw 6 month inventory was Feb of 2006, the game has changed post 1996, all the data is there to read, the problem is I don't believe you can read it properly"

Who cares about 6 months? I'm trying to show you that we don't have enough inventory-otherwise prices wouldn't be rising like this. Are you purposely being obtuse?

2nd

If it wasn't for the extra % cash buyer in this cycle existing home sales wouldn't have many prints above 4.5 million even with the longest expansion at the lowest rate curve

"First. New home sales is still at a recession levels even after one of the longest expansions on record with the lowest interest rate on record"

Who cares? I'm not arguing that demand is low. I don't care. I'm simply telling you that simple supply and demand analysis shows that if prices are rising, then we need more supply. Period.

"2nd If it wasn't for the extra % cash buyer in this cycle existing home sales wouldn't have many prints above 4.5 million even with the longest expansion at the lowest rate curve"

WHO CARES?

joeyjojojunior says

Are you purposely being obtuse?

It's not my fault you guys can't read this stuff properly, the reason I get national credit is because my sales numbers are better than anyone and I give a thesis

You're all trolls hiding behind fake names, I don't have that luxury I have to speak with actually economist and people about this stuff, they had much bigger sales numbers

"It's not my fault you guys can't read this stuff properly, the reason I get national credit is because my sales numbers are better than anyone and I give a thesis. You're all trolls hiding behind fake names, I don't have that luxury I have to speak with actually economist and people about this stuff, they had much bigger sales numbers"

No, it's your fault that you can't comprehend a simple concept like supply and demand. I find it hard to believe you've even had a Econ 101 course.

For the 50th time--we're not talking about sales volumes.

joeyjojojunior says

No, it's your fault that you can't comprehend a simple concept like supply and demand. I find it hard to believe you've even had a Econ 101 course

You're troll who hides behind a fake name and I speaking at the CAR conference because the head economist of the CAR and the NAR wanted me there

You guys can't read data properly here, I even use this site as a example for my followers on why not to listen to trolls on the internet

"You're troll who hides behind a fake name and I speaking at the CAR conference because the head economist of the CAR and the NAR wanted me there. You guys can't read data properly here, I even use this site as a example for my followers on why not to listen to trolls on the internet"

OK--I guess that ends this conversation again. When you start trolling about fake names and conferences you paid to go to, then the Anti-American stuff can't be far behind.

Honestly, I'm surprised you can't understand such a simple thing as this though. Even you should be able to grasp it.

joeyjojojunior says

Honestly, I'm surprised you can't understand such a simple thing as this though. Even you should be able to grasp it.

I just provided all my data... which I do with real people ... not boy band trolls who hide behind false narrative theories

20 years of data on my side and I got a rag tag yapping away without data

This is exactly my point..

You guys can't read data properly

:-)

Census heat map site

I encourage you to all read it

http://www.census.gov/popclock/?intcmp=home_pop

Head economist at core logic Sam and I always push this chart for those who can't grasp demographics

Why I say years 2020-2024 will be better than this cycle

Household formation to adjust to age demographic = better mortgage demand numbers

As the internals are going to look better like they did in 2016

Higher mortgage buyers, lower cash buyers total sales doesn't grow much but it's turning, the M's are getting old enough to buy

All we could talk about with economist here is about demographics with professionals ... people with degrees that study demographics and the Pat.net all that matters is price ... don't care about the single most powerful economic force ever

Demographics!!!

Can't read data

No housing bubble what so ever in America

and No the builders were never going to move to their 50 year average of 1.5 Million starts not with the demographics in this cycle

They were smarter than all of you!

Guess what, they own that business you guys don't

Deal with!

"I just provided all my data... which I do with real people ... not boy band trolls who hide behind false narrative theories. 20 years of data on my side and I got a rag tag yapping away without data. This is exactly my point..You guys can't read data properly"

Your problem is you don't understand the topic. All of your data is irrelevant. You think someone was arguing that low inventory was causing low sales numbers. Nobody here was theorizing that.

What Herc originally said was that we need more housing stock to drive prices down. And he is 100% correct. You have not and cannot present any data to dispute that.

joeyjojojunior says

ou have not and cannot present any data to dispute that.

Again, you can't even read what I said let alone actually read the charts that I put up

At least you have the common sense to hide behind a fake name, I give you that at least

Come on... bring it... bring me this logic... I can't wait