patrick.net

BoomAndBustCycle says

Zillow has actually gotten much more accurate this past year in their zestimates.

http://monterey.craigslist.org/apa/2954408531.html
Here's a $1300 3/2 rental ... 262 8th St, Soledad, CA

The ZESTIMATE is $121K for the property...

If this was actually true I would drive down to Soledad tomorrow and purchase this place as a rental. I don't see me driving anywhere tomorrow though, because either the ZESTIMATE is bogus or the rental amount is too expensive. 121K is Phoenix pricing.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I'm sure there are differences in the quality of rentals verses for sale homes that would merit a correcting factor, but nothing that large IMHO. If you think the values are off by 30-50% then maybe your assumptions also need to be scrutinized. It is much easier to criticize everyone else rather than turn the mirror on yourself though. Much in part to how the BA works in general.

Er, no. Go to Craigslist and find me a the equivalent of a $500,000 house in Monterey that rents for $950. Show me a $1m house that rents for $1900. They simply don't exist. Nowhere near. If I knew from experience that Patrick's figures were true, then I wouldn't be posting, but I know that they are far from correct. Very far.

Bigsby says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I'm sure there are differences in the quality of rentals verses for sale homes that would merit a correcting factor, but nothing that large IMHO. If you think the values are off by 30-50% then maybe your assumptions also need to be scrutinized. It is much easier to criticize everyone else rather than turn the mirror on yourself though. Much in part to how the BA works in general.

Er, no. Go to Craigslist and find me a the equivalent of a $500,000 house in Monterey that rents for $950. Show me a $1m house that rents for $1900. They simply don't exist. Nowhere near. If I knew from experience that Patrick's figures were true, then I wouldn't be posting, but I know that they are far from correct. Very far.

Well, that is not what the data says. You can type it all you want, but the data says otherwise. Nice how to can easily criticize someone else's data without anything to back it up except words. Very nice.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Well, that is not what the data says. You can type it all you want, but the data says otherwise. Nice how to can easily criticize someone else's data without anything to back it up except words. Very nice.

And as I keep saying, his data is obviously wrong in terms of being representative. This house, just round the corner from me, went pending almost immediately:

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5-Linda-Vista-Dr-Monterey-CA-93940/19311805_zpid/

I'd say it was pretty aggressively priced and that is why it has been snapped up quickly. But apparently, that property rents for below $1000 according to what you are saying. The reality is that it would rent for well over $2000. That doesn't make it good value in a rent/price calculator scenario, but it also quite obviously doesn't mean it matches the 527 figure. So like I keep saying, the reality is way below that number. And yes, I could do this for every single property in Monterey that is currently listed on MLS.

You know this is a joke just spot checking the #'s.

Lafayette @ 850, really?

A 850K house rents for 1K? really?

It's a craigslist data dump. The average ad for rent on CL is a one/two bedroom apartment.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Well, that is not what the data says. You can type it all you want, but the data says otherwise. Nice how to can easily criticize someone else's data without anything to back it up except words. Very nice.

The data Patrick posted, while interesting, really says very little other than homes are expensive in nice places. The fact that a crappy studio apartment is being measured against an ocean front mansion is, well, useless. Patrick says he believes in aggregate these extremes cancel each other out, but I think he's not correct.

Look at home rentals in Marin. I am very familiar with this area because my brother has been renting there. In good school districts, a home that sells in the 750k - 800k range rents for about $3500 - $4000.

Since buying would cost a bit more, one would think that you should rent. But most of the buyers there are just waiting to sell when prices go up. In my brother's situation, he was forced out because the home went into a short sale. He had to move out of the school district. He is now looking to buy, but he wishes he'd bought last year. His wife and kids do too.

My situation is a bit unique in that I am both a renter and a landlord. I agree that it is foolish to overpay for a property, but my view of "overpaying" is a bit different than many here.

Buying in the so-called fortress neighborhoods in CA is still a good investment if you do it right. This is what I am presently looking to do and why I come to this site.

Bigsby is right. This data is not useful because it is not comparing apples to apples.

rowemoore says

The data Patrick posted, while interesting, really says very little other than homes are expensive in nice places.

I think you missed the one and only point of all of this.

The data says that houses in expensive areas are not merely expensive -- they are more expensive than renting the same thing. By a huge amount.

Which is irrational.

My own theory (well, I picked up the idea from John Talbott) is that those ridiculous prices are driven entirely by status-seeking. You just don't get status points from your friends by renting, no matter how nice the house is.

rowemoore says

The data Patrick posted, while interesting, really says very little other than homes are expensive in nice places.

I think you missed the one and only point of all of this.

The data says that houses in expensive areas are not merely expensive -- they are more expensive than renting the same thing. By a huge amount.

Which is irrational.

My point is that it is not the same thing. You said this yourself:

rowemoore says

First of all, are you comparing apples to apples?

No, just rents to prices no matter what kind of place it is

The kind of place it is does matter. And the comps get even more skewed because most rentals are apartments and most sales are single family homes.

From a strictly anecdotal view, I think renting is a slightly better deal in an apples to apples situation. But often if it is a single family home in a nice neighborhood the landlord is probably going to sell or move back in before you're ready to leave.

orbitron says

Another example: I don't know what the specific historic p/e in Santa Clara is, but it is currently possible to buy a 600K (sometimes less) house that rents for about 2500. That's a p/e of 20 which is in line with general historic p/e-s.

That's the problem with you people. You seem to think that there is some "magic" historic p/e which must be the same all the time, but, the fact is, when the last time the stock market was at its historic low, it was 1933, and all stocks, across the board had a PE ratio of 6. If all areas had a PE of 6 right now, we'd be back to 1975 nominal levels.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

BoomAndBustCycle says

Zillow has actually gotten much more accurate this past year in their zestimates.

http://monterey.craigslist.org/apa/2954408531.html

Here's a $1300 3/2 rental ... 262 8th St, Soledad, CA

The ZESTIMATE is $121K for the property...

If this was actually true I would drive down to Soledad tomorrow and purchase this place as a rental. I don't see me driving anywhere tomorrow though, because either the ZESTIMATE is bogus or the rental amount is too expensive. 121K is Phoenix pricing.

Better start up your car! Why dont you just zillow the property and neighborhood? Its not that difficult. The house 2 doors down sold for $100k and this house sold for $135k in 2008. Look at the data. The schools must suck or it must be a bad part of soledad. I do not know the area, but you cannot deny owning would be much more affordable than renting.

We are at rental parity or better in almost all non-fortress communities in the US.

Rents could drop... But they are not in any meaningful way dropping now. Keep your head in the sand if you like, but renting in most areas is more expensive than owning.

Bigsby says

You posted one property that you supposedly thought confirmed Patrick's data. It does the exact opposite.

I posted one property to show the stupidity of doing that. Patrick has crunched though the whole data for the last 2 years. And all you jokers are doing to punch holes in it is to talk about your own piece of crap property. Glad you saw the stupidity, because it was right out there in front of you. Now, can we go back to talking about the real data? Or do we have to keep talking about what you think about your house situation. ;)

BoomAndBustCycle says

Better start up your car! Why dont you just zillow the property and neighborhood? Its not that difficult. The house 2 doors down sold for $100k and this house sold for $135k in 2008. Look at the data. The schools must suck or it must be a bad part of soledad. I do not know the area, but you cannot deny owning would be much more affordable than renting.

The list that Patrick compiled is real people selling properties and renting properties. Real live people, not some Zillow estimate site that is prone to errors. Zillow the houses yourself. You knuckleheads are the ones challenging the data and then asking others to do the work for you. The data looks perfect for my area. I believe it is near perfect for other areas from what I can tell. I am not challenging it, you and the other inspector gadgets in this group are.

San Mateo = 360

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Let me do the math for you, cause it is tough. 1.2m/3k = 400. I'll break it down better cause I jumped ahead a few steps there. 1200/3k. First we can start with taking the 3 and dividing it into the 12. It comes out to a nice 4 value. Now we have two 0's left and we can just take them both and tack them on the end of the 4 we already have. That gives us the 400! What was the number that Patrick posted again from the craigslist database? 360 you say. Wow, that is pretty close.

For months now, all you fools have been saying rents are rising, buy now or you will get priced out. Now the raw data is too shocking for you to comprehend. Tough to get that reality slap I'm sure. Some of the side effects of having the weight of a 30yr over-leverage note on your back. Sorry for your loss.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Bigsby says

You posted one property that you supposedly thought confirmed Patrick's data. It does the exact opposite.

I posted one property to show the stupidity of doing that. Patrick has crunched though the whole data for the last 2 years. And all you jokers are doing to punch holes in it is to talk about your own piece of crap property. Glad you saw the stupidity, because it was right out there in front of you. Now, can we go back to talking about the real data? Or do we have to keep talking about what you think about your house situation. ;)

Hmm, if you post a link to demonstrate the pointlessness of referencing a single property, then you'd be better served showing a rental that actually supported your argument, don't you think?
And the only stupidity here is your dogged persistence in ignoring the blatantly obvious. Are you so wrapped up in your own confirmation bias that everything has to tally with that at the expense of considering the like-for-like comparisons that are freely available for you to check? Really, what is so difficult to understand? His 'data' simply doesn't reflect the market. I don't know how or what information he gathered - whether he's taken the whole area, including Pebble beach, Carmel, Big Sur... and added those in to get inflated values on houses for sale and then contrasted them with a preponderance of low end apartment rentals or something else. BUT for the hundredth time, Monterey does not have a housing to rental ratio of 527. Why is it such a problem for you to accept that? It doesn't threaten you. It doesn't change your life. It simply indicates that the information that Patrick gathered for Monterey is seriously flawed.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Let me do the math for you, cause it is tough. 1.2m/3k = 400. I'll break it down better cause I jumped ahead a few steps there. 1200/3k. First we can start with taking the 3 and dividing it into the 12. It comes out to a nice 4 value. Now we have two 0's left and we can just take them both and tack them on the end of the 4 we already have. That gives us the 400! What was the number that Patrick posted again from the craigslist database? 360 you say. Wow, that is pretty close.

For months now, all you fools have been saying rents are rising, buy now or you will get priced out. Now the raw data is too shocking for you to comprehend. Tough to get that reality slap I'm sure. Some of the side effects of having the weight of a 30yr over-leverage note on your back. Sorry for your loss.

You seem very angry. That and very defensive. The figures might work for your area. They don't for Monterey and seemingly other areas. Fine. Why not wind your neck back in and accept that his data isn't entirely representative?
And I think most of us are capable of doing basic maths, though judging by your use of that Soledad drive property, I'd say you'd benefit from hitting the books.

Bigsby says

Hmm, if you post a link to demonstrate the pointless of referencing a single property, then you'd be better served showing a rental that actually supported your argument, don't you think?
And the only stupidity here is your dogged persistence in ignoring the blatantly obvious. Are you so wrapped up in your own confirmation bias that everything has to tally with that at the expense of considering the like-for-like comparisons that are freely available for you to check?

You talking to me or yourself? That type of logic would be better served talking into the mirror. I am ready to buy. I have no bias, only the bias of the current data and the trends. I want to buy, but will only do it when the data says it is a good time. You, my friend, are littered with a biased tone. I give up, can't spend anymore time on you. Good luck to you.

Bigsby says

You seem very angry.

I am very angry, we all should be. We have been and continue to be lied to by many people in this industry. I have seen families destroyed financially and the stress leading to breakups. I have seen people who were lied to believe that they can afford something find out that they couldn't. I have been lied to my face by these same people over and over. It still happens, here on this site and when I step out into the housing market in the BA. Everyone is on the take, no one has your best interest at heart. The housing market is all about profit, commissions, make it big without hard work, etc. etc. It has ruined this country, don't you see it. It is continuing to ruin this country. If I could I would destroy the current system and put all the realtors out of work. They are horrible and don't even realize how much pain and stress they have caused. I need to hit something alright, and it is not the books. It is the Mercedes driver that talks to the family that is just barely making a living and telling them that real estate will make you rich. They are not honest people, and you are close to joining them with your dribble. Look at the data, challenge the data with logical reasoning, but don't just wave your hand and try to make it all disappear. Data lives and is real, it can be challenged properly, but you are no where near proper in your arguments.

Done

rowemoore says

The data Patrick posted, while interesting, really says very little other than homes are expensive in nice places.

I think you missed the one and only point of all of this.

The data says that houses in expensive areas are not merely expensive -- they are more expensive than renting the same thing. By a huge amount.

Which is irrational.

This may well be true, but by your own admission, the data you collected doesn't actually demonstrate that. You haven't gathered data on like-for-like properties, you've simply lumped everything together, which has completely skewed the results and basically made them worthless. Better to just stick with the rent/buy calculator.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

You talking to me or yourself? That type of logic would be better served talking into the mirror. I am ready to buy. I have no bias, only the bias of the current data and the trends. I want to buy, but will only do it when the data says it is a good time. You, my friend, are littered with a biased tone. I give up, can't spend anymore time on you. Good luck to you.

I'm not biased, I was simply pointing out that if you are using this data to form an impression of value, then you are being seriously misled. The data flat out doesn't demonstrate that if I bought house X for Y price, then I'd be paying Z amount over the equivalent rental price. In that regard, the data is totally useless, and Patrick has basically said the same. It seems that it is you who is the only one unwilling to accept that.

Aptos is interesting because I didn't know you could rent there and the houses are more expensive than anywhere here until you are down near Carmel.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

I am very angry, we all should be. We have been and continue to be lied to by many people in this industry. I have seen families destroyed financially and the stress leading to breakups. I have seen people who were lied to believe that they can afford something find out that they couldn't. I have been lied to my face by these same people over and over. It still happens, here on this site and when I step out into the housing market in the BA. Everyone is on the take, no one has your best interest at heart.

And where does personal responsibility and basic financial decision making come into this? Realtors are in the business of selling houses. I didn't walk into buying a house trusting them. I went into it by making a clear decision on what I could afford and then buying (or actually waiting 7 years to buy) a house that was acceptable to me. Many people were seriously misled, but plenty more people threw common sense out of the window and tried to make a fast buck. I have sympathy for some, but not all. It's the biggest financial commitment pretty much all of us make. A lot of people clearly didn't think carefully enough about it during the bubble years. Many, many people are to blame for that, and that list includes many of the buyers themselves.

Bigsby says

The data flat out doesn't demonstrate that if I bought house X for Y price, then I'd be paying Z amount over the equivalent rental price. In that regard, the data is totally useless, and Patrick has basically said the same. It seems that it is you who is the only one unwilling to accept that.

Big hand wave to make the data go away. Go away data, I don't like you. :)

Bigsby says

Many, many people are to blame for that, and that list includes many of the buyers themselves.

Very true and I agree. That doesn't remove the anger I have for a corrupt institution that is not there to help people. I have enough anger for everyone. ;)

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Bigsby says

The data flat out doesn't demonstrate that if I bought house X for Y price, then I'd be paying Z amount over the equivalent rental price. In that regard, the data is totally useless, and Patrick has basically said the same. It seems that it is you who is the only one unwilling to accept that.

Big hand wave to make the data go away. Go away data, I don't like you. :)

You still appear to not get what I'm saying. It's not a matter of wanting the data to go away, it's a matter of the data being completely unrepresentative. It does not inform on the relative value of any given purchase in comparison to equivalent rentals. Patrick has said the same.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Big hand wave to make the data go away. Go away data, I don't like you. :)

Do you seriously not get it? There have been at least 5 posters telling you the same thing. There is an OBVIOUS bias in the data. The data isn't lying, it's just not saying what you think it says. The methodology is flawed.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo. First thing I noticed is there are very few homes for rent. This kinda sucks if the landlord wants to move back in and you need to quickly find another acceptable place in the same school district.

The second thing is that nothing that would sell over a Million is priced anywhere close to 3k per month. In Marin -area I am familiar with - a 1 million dollar home rents for about 5-6k. Depending on the home, it still may be a good deal to rent, but it is not the insane bargain you make it out to be.

I understand the bitterness of getting screwed, but not everyone who sells real estate is a complete asshole, and not everyone who made a stupid purchase is the poor victim. But yeah, most realtors, like most sales people in general, are often annoying.

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109818825&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109744905&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110222341&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110075966&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=110001314&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109200613&src=main

http://www.padmapper.com/show.php?type=0&id=109308633&src=main

rowemoore says

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Maybe he lives with his parents.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

It is the Mercedes driver that talks to the family that is just barely making a living and telling them that real estate will make you rich.

Yes, it is infuriating and all, the problem is that people don't analyze the situation. If you buy a house as an investment and take out a interest only loan hoping to get rich on it just by holding the property and then get wiped out financially, it is a way of karma teaching you a lesson and then one must atone for their sins of greed. However, lets not go overboard from this and assume that renting is better than buying in all cases. It isn't. It was until about 2009 in bay area, but afterwards, opportunites appeared where it is now possible to minimize lifetime housing costs when choosing to buy vs rent. There are many variables out there to analyze - monthly household income, job stability, commute, can payment be made if one person loses the job, quality of purchsed property vs rental property etc. The worst thing to do is to be an idealogue whether one is pro/anti renting/buying and closing the eyes to reality.

rowemoore says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

tiny tina says

rowemoore says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

My rent = 3K for a house that can sell for 1.2m+

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in. I just padmapped San Mateo.

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

Try to find one on the water for 800k. Good luck.

tiny tina says

Just doing a quick search on Redfin, a 3/2 house of 1500 sq ft in Foster City likely would sell for $800k based on recent sales.

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

Does my landlord like me? Sure, why shouldn't he. I pay on time. I take good care of the place. I treat the home as my own and have upgrade lots of stuff in my spare time. I don't pay for materials but use my time for free. It helps my living arrangements and the landlord doesn't mind the improvements. I already told you guys, Win-win and it has always been like that. There is lots of common ground between a renter and landlord if you try to understand both sides.

You can not believe me all you want. Truth is that I could find another house like the one I have in a few weeks if needed. That is small stuff to me and I don't spend a second worrying about it. I worry about my families safety and health, but the rest is nothing to me. :)

dublin hillz says

Yes, it is infuriating and all, the problem is that people don't analyze the situation. If you buy a house as an investment and take out a interest only loan hoping to get rich on it just by holding the property and then get wiped out financially, it is a way of karma teaching you a lesson and then one must atone for their sins of greed.

I'd be fine it that was true. But my karma did nothing to the situation and doesn't need to be taught anything. The current system punishes us all for the greed of the few. Have you seen the debt we are running try to bail out this system of greed and corruption. That is why I am angry. If people want to go destroy themselves financially, then I wouldn't care. It is when they take the whole country on the cliff dive with them. I am affected, my children will be affect. My company is affect. We should be all sick of it. I still get fliers for 0% down, it needs to stop.

rowemoore says

Either your landlord is a moron or really, really likes you, or (more likely) you are misrepresenting the value of the home you live in.

Believe what you want. But no misrepresenting here. 3 homes have sold on my street and one of the home is an exact copy of the one I rent. It is what it is. I don't need to lie. You also don't need to believe.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

The current system punishes us all for the greed of the few.

This brings up the issue of how to control bubbles in general. What about investors who did not participate in tech stock bubble in leading up to 2000? They still ended up as collateral damage even though they were more disciplined than money hungry "greater fools." Why should somebody for example who invested in telecom lose 20% of net worth while someone who invested in nasdaq stocks lost 50% or more in some cases? How can bubble activities which are fueled by greed and thoughts of easy money be curtailed?

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

If by comparable you mean 500sq ft larger, then yes, they are comparable. Plus, the only one close to $1.3M is not selling. Your claim appears to be quite a stretch.

A way to curtail a bubble is no credit to the person buying the bubble asset.
This tends to minimize the bubble forming.
No one pays out of pocket for medical treatment>medical cost bubble.
College loans are avaiable for large amounts>college cost bubble
Breathing and can hold a pen eligible for mortgage>house price bubble
Margin allowed100% in stocks (1929)>stock price bubble
There are other bubbles but a rule of thumb is that if you pay cash out of your own pocket for something you are more cautious.

tiny tina says

If by comparable you mean 500sq ft larger, then yes, they are comparable. Plus, the only one close to $1.3M is not selling. Your claim appears to be quite a stretch.

So 1.189m is not close to 1.2m? Sorry, I was way off. Also, I haven't actually measure my sqft. It probably is closer to 1800 or so. That was a guess from me cause I really don't want to go around with a tape measure. I do know that the sister home to mine which is just across the street sold 6 months ago for 1.2m and why I use that number. Believe what you want, sounds like you got your mind made up already. Your disbelieve just shows me how smooth of a rental finder I am. My wife found it hard to believe also when I yanked her out of work and brought her there. Maybe it is my good karma. ;)

clambo says

A way to curtail a bubble is no credit to the person buying the bubble asset.

This tends to minimize the bubble forming.

No one pays out of pocket for medical treatment>medical cost bubble.

College loans are avaiable for large amounts>college cost bubble

Breathing and can hold a pen eligible for mortgage>house price bubble

Margin allowed100% in stocks (1929)>stock price bubble

There are other bubbles but a rule of thumb is that if you pay cash out of your own pocket for something you are more cautious.

Finally, someone that is making sense around here finally. Yes, no credit. End the greed and the stupidity. I'd vote for it in a snap. Let people have to pony up cash and you will see how poor this country really is. The resource based countries are going to have their day if we are not careful. Canada, Australia, Brasil are just waiting and getting stronger everyday. Forget oil and precious metals. Potash, rare earth minerals, and eventually water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Here are comparable houses to mine.

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/602-Bridgeport-Ln-100_81207952.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/760-Coronado-Ln-100_81145696.htm

http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/homes-for-sale/CA/Foster-City/707-Matsonia-Dr-100_81209973.htm

You've said your home is 1500sq ft. These are all bigger. Also, these haven't sold. In your area if I wanted to buy a 1500 sq ft property it would be 800k. I'm basing this on recent sales in the neighborhoods of these homes. Renting that place would be about 4k(according to padmapper). Townhouses in your area rent for about 3k and sell for about 5-600k.

So yes, you have a deal, but not some insane deal. BTW, don't buy there--Landfill death zone.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

We've got plenty of fresh water near me. And the Great Lakes aren't too far away either.

Of course, it takes 9 months of cold, wet, cloudy weather to get that nice fresh water...;-)

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Finally, someone that is making sense around here finally. Yes, no credit. End the greed and the stupidity. I'd vote for it in a snap. Let people have to pony up cash and you will see how poor this country really is. The resource based countries are going to have their day if we are not careful. Canada, Australia, Brasil are just waiting and getting stronger everyday. Forget oil and precious metals. Potash, rare earth minerals, and eventually water will be big news during my lifetime. Guess who got them? Hint: not us.

I don't think we want to go to this extreme as a nation. I was in Nicaragua a couple of years ago and there is no lending available. As a result, only the elite can afford anything more than bare subsistence. That's why you see children hounding tourists who get off tour buses for apples and dollar bills.