patrick.net

freak80 says

There's a lot more land open for development in ND than Palo Alto.

ND is a state. Palo Alto is a city. Let's compare apples to apples here. Palo Alto is a city in California, which is a lot bigger than North Dakota.

dunross,

You've become unhinged.

The issue is supply of land. In ND they can build a new housing development almost anywhere. That's not true in coastal CA.

freak80 says

The issue is supply of land. In ND they can build a new housing development almost anywhere. That's not true in coastal CA.

But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?

dunnross says

But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?

Is it 10X more even after inflation? Maybe it is, I don't know. Prices are crazy out there.

You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.

The demand for a place to live is "inelastic" since you *must* have it. It's not like switching from beef to pork if beef gets too expensive. The supply is also inelastic, because of environmentalist wackos...er...excuse me...land use restrictions. That means big price swings with small changes in demand. Add in speculators and it gets even more volatile.

It's Econ 101.

freak80 says

dunnross says

But this is nothing new. It was the same case back in 1980. Why am I asked to pay 10x more now?

Is it 10X more even after inflation? Maybe it is, I don't know. Prices are crazy out there.

You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.

The demand for a place to live is "inelastic" since you *must* have it. It's not like switching from beef to pork if beef gets too expensive. The supply is also inelastic, because of environmentalist wackos...er...excuse me...land use restrictions. That means big price swings with small changes in demand. Add in speculators and it gets even more volatile.

It's Econ 101.

And lets not forget the Russian Immigrants. Ain't no place to have some vodka with caviar and herring like in a house in "silicon valley."

freak80 says

You're asked to pay 10x more now because people are standing in line to pay 10x more now. Why? Because demand went up and supply stayed the same. Econ 101.

In Econ 101 they also teach you that demand is at the lowest and supply is at its highest at the bottom of the economic cycle. So, what kind of a bottom is this where demand is so much higher than supply?

robertoaribas says

What you would actually expect at a bottom is supply and demand to be back in equilibrium from having been out of balance with supply greater than demand...

Agree, but if 2012 was really the bottom, and we would have achieved equilibrium, then we wouldn't see people standing in line to pay 10x more than in 1980, now would we?

robertoaribas says

that number is shrinking by 1500 to 2000 a month

And how the heck do you come up with that number?

dunnross says

Like I said before, you pea-brain bulls always need some lame excuse to keep you planted in your froggy pots.

dunnross,

Is that for real? You [are starting to] sound completely nuts.

I can't help but invoke Poe's Law right now. I'm not a "bull" on RE. I'm a happy renter. I rent for the ability to move whenever I want/need to.

I don't blame you for not wanting to pay outrageous prices just for shelter. That's why I don't live on the West Coast or in the Northeast Corridor. I refuse to make someone else rich just because "they got there first." I don't understand why anyone puts up with it, really. Unless they have a very good paying job they cannot get anywhere else.

You should move to some place less expensive. There are plenty of those places. You're living in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

ONly because the banks are not filing for foreclosure on all their homes...
Using "foreclosures" as a metric is amateurish and a fools game.

The real measure of the industry is : How many houses are the banks holding on the books..

robertoaribas says

I add this to the fact that Phoenix has roughly 11,000 homes in foreclosure and that number is shrinking by 1500 to 2000 a month

dunnross says

Because manipulation cannot go on forever. Even the Soviet Union fell. Banks and the Fed have been manipulating gold prices since the 80's, but gold has caught up to them. Now gold tells the truth! This will happen with housing too.

So put your money where your mouth is. Cash out your 401k and take investment positions, with lots of leverage, based on those assertions. You'll be rich and make the rest of us look like fools.

SoftShell says

However, I personally know 3 people who stopped paying on their mortgage from 8 to 18 months, with the banks not starting the foreclosure process.

Once extrapolated, a legitimate assumption can be made.

You may be correct concerning foreclosed homes, but one cannot extrapolate data from an anecdotal fallacy, and have that result in "legitimate" assumptions.

For a singular event, I agree.
But three separate events?? ( 3 distinct people not paying on their mortgage )

anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
leo707 says