patrick.net

All I can say in conclusion is that there have been many, many people who thought their investments or whatever it was they made money at would always work in their favor. They have all been proven wrong at one time or another. This time will be no different. So keep showing us charts. There were a lot of charts showing infinite housing booms last time too...

One must be careful not to get caught in a bullshit trap as well.

I don’t think domestic middle class with stagnate wages have much of juice to push real estate prices higher. The prime areas can be pushed higher only by foreign cash buyers. Shifting in world wealth is a fact. Buyers from China, Russia, Korea, Brazil not only are present in US but in Europe and Pacific. New tigers dictate world prices. Americans will have no choice like giving up attractive areas and move to always affordable central states.
http://www.realestate.co.jp/insider-guide/2013/05/20/foreign-buyers-pushing-up-land-prices-in-japan/

socal2 says

What the 9/11 troofers never address is why would the "evil US Government" go through the extra effort of rigging the building with explosives (and getting caught) when simply flying the airliners into the buildings was enough to get the nation to rally around the flag?

In defense to the troofer, this is not the case. There were airliners hijacked and bombed before, yet no one felt the need to go to war.
It needed to be big and in the living center of America. Not just a plane. It needed to be a black eye to America itself.

And most of the deads were from the buildings collapse.

The 42 year average of mortgage rates is 8.5%... we still have a long way to go to reach a normal mortgage interest rates. I don't think anyone has to have a great imagination to see what would happen when mortgage rates go to 8.5%.

As mortgage rates start climbing to their historic averages investors will cash in their gains and flee with their capital so that they can make more money elsewhere than the paltry returns on real estate. That will start panic selling, unfortunately there will be a huge shortage of buyers but the downward spiral would've started.

Prices would have to fall 45-55% for affordability to remain the same as in a 4.5% interest rates environment. Either that or incomes will have to rise strongly which is HIGHLY doubtful given income trends.

The party will continue until it can't continue anymore and then we will have to face the music. The longer the party lasts the stronger the crash will be.

In my opinion we are poised for another 2008 style great crash.

CaptainShuddup says

They were able to half ass rig a building that huge in secret and have it implode with a success. As much as I love good old fashioned conspiracy theory this one just doesn't fly, not even remotely plausible.

To defend the troofers further: let me tell you what IS actually impossible: at time T, a building (WTC7) stands on dozens of steel pillars. An instant later, time T+delta T, the building is (1) in free fall (no resistance), (2) falling in the path where all these dozen columns should resist most, (3) falling symmetrically.

In other words, these dozens of steel columns ceased to exist at the same instant.

All humans circumstances can be arranged one way or an other. The laws of physics are the last layer. They can't be violated by anything known to man.

So if you think the building fell because of fire or because of debris, you do need to explain how the 3 points above are possible.

Japan is still a major economy unless you think an economy with a GDP half as large again as Germany is something else.

Call it Crazy says

Roberto

http://www.youtube.com/embed/krPhj39Tp30

I presume he's referring to the oft quoted average length of stay in a house, though I've read surveys that state the point at which half have moved and half remain is more like 15 years for single family home buyers (The American Housing Survey).

You've all stopped believing high inflation could ever happen. How amusing.

WTF??

deepcgi says

You've all stopped believing high inflation could ever happen.

no wage inflation, no inflation.

"high inflation" in our history has been a response to higher wages and fewer goods to buy -- in the post-WWI era, 1960-80s.

Prices can only be at what people are able to pay.

Zimbabwe and Weimar happen when the masses have access to helicopter money, overwhelming the supply of goods for sale, causing the price level to skyrocket in response as people bid to buy the last items on the shelves.

We're far, far, far from that state of affairs now, in most areas of the economy at least.

(I can see the US supply of livestock getting scarcer this century as rising diesel costs, drought, fossil water exhaustion, and rising exports to China reduce our oversupply of food).

Ceteris paribus, imports are deflationary, and exports are inflationary.

But if you search "exports are inflationary" you'll find half the matches are me, LOL.

Price inflation is not a monetary phenomenon, it is a behavioral phenomenon.

Now, if there's a major dislocation or discontinuity -- say war with China -- all bets are off.

Bill: the high cost of renting indicates wages must increase or the behavior of the MAJORITY must change. For example two or three families willing to live in the same square footage as they had been living in before individually. Inflation begins first in the decrease of quality in goods and services. Fewer raisins in every scoop. You have been propped up by the fed for too long. You believe you can never lose.

Bellingham Bill says

no wage inflation, no inflation.

Stagflation. See 1970s, also 2010s
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stagflation.asp

If more and more people shack up with other people the murder rate is going to skyrocket. All those rentals with too many people living in them will be trashed or we'll create an army of squatters. Should help gun sales.

David Losh,

Your views are interesting but hard to decipher with all the to and fro. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that RE has peaked or have a few years of life left?

My position is too early to tell, need to wait till Oct. Price has weakened slightly and inventory has declined slightly.

New Renter says

Stagflation. See 1970s

20M jobs were added to the economy in the 1970s.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=lrf

shows wages were rising 10% pa at the end of the decade.

Then they put Volcker in and he killed the economy

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=lrg

by cutting off the supply of credit.

SubOink says

because I was renting a house for $2200 that would have cost me $4000 to buy. It made no sense

never, ever ever ever compare the P in PITI with rent.

That was the mistake I made 2001-2002.

Move to Yucca Valley CA and live the good life with adopted horses and dogs. Rent is more expensive than a mortgage.

The Climate is nice movie stars and artists live here only 40 min.
to Palm Springs at 3500-4000 ft. elevation. Best schools here.

Steepest line on this chart is the late 1970s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

"stagflation" my ass.

Bellingham Bill says

Steepest line on this chart is the late 1970s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

"stagflation" my ass.

OK, your ass then:

http://uneasymoney.com/2012/06/18/1970s-stagflation/

Now let's address if the mother keeps a baby. $94,100 is the basic cost of raising a child born in 2013, from birth to 18 years old, according to Wikipedia. Actual average cost for a single parent with income under $60k is $157,10, and over $60k is $333,420.

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of another income producing adult or government assistance?

I do not believe any man is legally obligated to a women to pay for her if she just has a child of his. Alimony is a different issue, which by the way, now often works both ways.

I know single moms raise their kids without any financial help from the father all over the country, but the children suffer. Mothers absolutely are taking responsibility for their children. This is pretty basic concept, so...

I am starting to wonder if you are really upset about the fact that women get to choose whether or not they have a baby? Or maybe this has to do with envy of the female ability to create life within their bodies...and the fact that men's physical active part of the creation process ends with the sexual act (although the sperm lives on and transforms)?..just musing on why this is so upsetting for you, (this is not an attack).

Indiana Jones says

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of another income producing adult or government assistance?

That's why single parenthood without proof of means (including help from a willing partner, who may or may not have any biological link to the child) should not be encouraged or even allowed. Planning to raise a child with certain knowledge of lack of means is a crime against either the unborn child or the taxpayers or the unwilling father (who may have been equally drunk at the time of intercourse but has the mental clarity not to give birth to the child).

Of course, actually having a government that means-test each pregnant woman would be way too interventionist (and giving rise for massive bribery opportunities for bureaucrats enforcing such laws), so the solution is no law enforcing tax payer subsidy or support from unwilling partners, so the woman (and her family and friends giving advice) would have a chance to come to rational decision during pregnancy and be prepared to do it alone if they insist. Yes, the biological urge for a woman to keep her fetus is strong due to historical evolutionary reasons . . . however it is no more valid justification in a modern society than for a man to rape as many women as possible in order to spread his genes, also due to historical evolutionary reasons.

Indiana Jones says

Now let's address if the mother keeps a baby. $94,100 is the basic cost of
raising a child born in 2013, from birth to 18 years old, according to
Wikipedia. Actual average cost for a single parent with income under $60k is
$157,10, and over $60k is $333,420.

Please tell me how is a single parent is supposed to effectively parent the
child, which is a full-time 24/7 job, as any parent will tell you, and at the
same time come up with that amount of cash over 18 years without the help of
another income producing adult or government assistance?

Who forced her to have kids? Like Octomom who had six and then went and had eight-now the whole state of CA is supporting her.

Forcing a father to pay half expenses -basic only is fine. Any more is feminist propoganda. There are people paying 50k a month in child support and they get no say in how the money is spent-or saved for a rainy day. In many places feminists have fought and changed laws to allow for palimony-where a man has to pay because he had a relationship with a woman -not even married. Then you wonder why people call modern woman whores?
Despite calims to the contrary-alimony goes from men to women in 97% of cases.

Yes the laws are the problem-but it is feminists that pushed for this and now there is pushback, they are freaking out that men are wising up and actually asking them to be equal-you know be responsible for their own lives??

That is all I ask as a man. You wanted equal opportunity-here it is yours and accept equal responsibility and quit whining about men holding you down in 2013 . I see plenty of drunk men complaining and claiming that if only the system was different they would be Bill gates. Well meg Whitman became a billionare before any equal pay law -that is what nitwit feminists don't understand. There is no such thing as equal pay-you fight and achieve what you want not pass a law and sing Kumbayah. Plenty of men get paid different for doing the same thing.

But useless talking to western feminist women. They want the man to serve up everything, just come for the ride, not fall at all and if they fail blame it on men and pass a law demanding some other crap from men. The only men who suffer are responsible men-but that is actually true for most people in this country. The Romneys and the Obamas thrive while lying and swinding and the poor live off us-demonizing the very people they live off of.

MershedPerturders says

If the guy is wealthy, suddenly her maternal instincts are going strong. If the guy is poor, it's a 'blob of cells'.

Which goes along with the fact that our right wing controlled government does not want to be in the business of supporting children. To the extent that our government does support some children, these are the ones living in the worst neighborhoods with many terrible influences and poor diet.

We're talking about the same children that make our public education statistics look bad. Which in turn causes the plutocrats and corporations to rail against teacher unions.

But that's really just code -> translation: "we don't even want to support poor children as much as we are now !!

(not that teachers and money to schools solves the problem of children of poor parents (often poor parents in multiple ways))

marcus says

Which goes along with the fact that our right wing controlled government does not want to be in the business of supporting children. To the extent that our government does support some children, these are the ones living in the worst neighborhoods with many terrible influences and poor diet.

Godwin's law strikes again. The government does not have the money to support those children, it's completely useless to make this a partisan issue. The US is nearly bankrupt and if somebody would say they will pay for those kids and do good they would be lying as the money for that would come from the middle class again, creating more poverty. The responsibility has to be shared by both, man and woman, there is no other way. The only way to benefit future generations is to stop raising the country's debt which will have to be payed back by them in taxes (or other wealth confiscation measures).

marcus says

(not that teachers and money to schools solves the problem of children of poor parents (often poor parents in multiple ways))

No kidding! Such policies are called supporting failures and encouraging failures! Guess where the government gets its resources to provide such "support" (after bureaucrats take their own cuts)? It's taken from the more self-sufficient parents who otherwise would be able to have more children and pay for better nutrition and better education on their own! The resources that would otherwise have been able to nourish and support the next generation is being wasted on the vacation houses and boats for the bureaucrats and the beers and pot for the loser "parents" who have never matured enough to take on the responsibility of parenting to begin with . . . all thanks to silly government policies that subsidizes failure and bureaucratic skulldudgery while penalizing success and self-reliance.

While I'm all for the liberty of individual putting whatever in his/her own body, but is it any wonder that if we as a society keep encouraging children conceived in drugged haze and carried in uteri circulating with alcohol, nicotine and numerous drugs, and then fed with equally tainted human milk . . . while destroying the middle class' and upper-middle class' chance to raise their own babies in much better environment by taxing them . . . is there any wonder the society is trending towards idiocracy?

This thread is the reason I miss getting high. It'd be easier to read.

It's easy enough to not have kids. Just get a vasectomy. You don't have to tell whomever you are dating that you have got that done, unless you think that they would like that. If woman find it acceptable to "oops" a man, then it's perfectly acceptable to date a woman who wants kids and conveniently omit the fact that you are fixed.

zzyzzx says

It's easy enough to not have kids. Just get a vasectomy. You don't have to tell whomever you are dating that you have got that done, unless you think that they would like that. If woman find it acceptable to "oops" a man, then it's perfectly acceptable to data a woman who wants kids and conveniently omit the fact that you are fixed.

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

Snipping yourself doesn't help avoid tax slavery to support losers having their loser children who have high propensity to become criminals in the future.

I'd support mandatory snipping for fathers who get woman pregnant but don't cough up at least $6k/yr (roughly half of the $200k over 18 years that it takes to raise a child). Both the father and the mother need to be fixed if they don't have the means to raise a child but insist on having one. Their action is either gross negligence to the child or planned robbery on their neighbors.

Having a child should not be an alternative form of employment paid for by taxpayers. Both the children and the society are harmed by those irresponsible parents.

elliemae says

This thread is the reason I miss getting high. It'd be easier to read.

Drug-addled termagant!

See: All women are drug addicts!

Women are just not cost-effective...

mell says

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

In that case, get a pre-natal DNA test. Don't wait till the child is born. If the result shows it's not yours, get her out of your life ASAP so she can make a rational decision with the biological father.

No worries, we can build more prisons to stimulate the economy and house the mongrels. Everyone wins.

Just carry around a contract, next to the rubber in your wallet, that states that you do not want children with the woman you are about to have relations with and if any should come of this union, you will not pay for them.

mell says

One word of caution: if you date long enough and she gets pregnant from another dude you may still be somewhat on the hook, even after a DNA test ;)

True, buy that's pretty rare. If something like that were to happen to me I'd liquidate my assets and move to another country.

robertoaribas says

not due to any magical central bank action.

Really Bob? Lending in Emerging Markets is just business as usual?

Quigley says

We could take care of every child in America with a quarter of the money we spend on defense, now at 48% of the national budget. Oh and it's not all jet planes and warships and troops. The largest part now goes to spying and homeland security, which is domestic spying and keeping citizens under the Federal boot.

That surely is true, but unfortunately will likely never happen (i.e. significantly reducing the defense budget).

robertoaribas says

David Losh says

Show me in history where Central Banking has had such a key role in a global economic recovery.

I can show you where it didn't: the great depression.

and your point is that the Protection period before WWII was some how related to a global economic recovery by the Central Banking system, or not.

Really Bob, you seem to be losing it lately.

mell says

The government does not have the money to support those children

Okay. But then why do those who feel most strongly about this, also want the government to make abortion illegal ?