by Raw ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
All is well. Upwards of a quadrillion in derivatives risk. No problem. Faith in fiat never faileth. No danger in hyper-extending leverage on food stuff commodities, because too many people will never be hungry at the same time.
housing is not 100% deflated from the last bubble.
It is about 90% deflated, though. At least nationally:
http://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflation-adjusted/
Hardly need to look hard. Take the entire peninsula from San Francisco, all the way down to San Jose.
That area is expensive because of the high-paying tech jobs. Locally, anything can happen to RE.
A few years ago western North Dakota was nothing but ghost towns. Now, RE is booming thanks to the Bakken oil play.
RE goes up when there's a flood of money coming in.
That doesn't mean anyone should buy if they can rent something similar for less.
That area is expensive because of the high-paying tech jobs. Locally, anything can happen to RE.
High-paying tech jobs is a myth. We are 12 years past the tech crash, and people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. Average income in Palo Alto is $52K/year, and people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. Health care, finance & mining pays much more than tech, these days, but people are still talking about high-paying tech jobs. When will you ever learn?
Now, RE is booming thanks to the Bakken oil play.
So are houses in Bakken more expensive than Palo Alto? Not by a long shot, but, they should, because oil is something people need a lot more than getting an Apple 5 upgrade.
In my own, partially-informed opinion:
George W. Bush and Barack Obama (with TARP and the Stimulus Act) both worked to DELAY a depression.
Greenspan lowered interest rates during the booming in the 90s, instead of raising them. That tossed the Fed into a downward spiral, where they've felt forced to lower rates until they can't anymore (0%).
Credit below 7% for 10 years is distorted. It attracts investment capital away from slow, steady deposits like CDs and Money Market accounts toward weird, crazy stuff like Hedge Funds -- as investors scramble to make their 3% to beat inflation. Normally CDs would easily pay 3%+ under 7% interest rates.
The distorted credit markets and capital flow toward hedge funds are to blame for:
- Oil speculation [runaway gas prices]
- Crop speculation [runaway food prices]
- The '03-'08 housing bubble [runaway house prices]
- Student loan bubble [runaway tuition prices]
- Payday lending cancer
Americans have been burned so badly over the past 10 years, many are cutting back, despite low interest rates. Low interest rates only attract borrowers who shouldn't have borrowed in the first place.
This is a deflationary spiral ... which is happening simultaneously with an "inflation" in fuel and food prices (from bubbles). It's bizarre. I've never seen anything like it.
The only way to fix the problem is to raise interest rates and/or just wait for systemic failure and restructuring... a.k.a GREAT DEPRESSION II. Until then, we're stuck in this sludgy, distorted mess.
Presidents will continue short-sighted policies which further delay the pain. QE2 and QE3 are not about saving the economy -- they are about keeping it afloat temporarily until 2016. Every president from Clinton, to Bush Jr., to Obama is playing hot potato. It's remarkable they've been able to postpone the crash/readjustment for 12 YEARS! But it will come!
So are houses in Bakken more expensive than Palo Alto? Not by a long shot, but, they should,
There's a lot more land open for development in ND than Palo Alto.
because oil is something people need a lot more than getting an Apple 5 upgrade.
True, but people are still waiting in line to buy the iPhone 5. Apple is making money.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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?
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?
that number is shrinking by 1500 to 2000 a month
And how the heck do you come up with that number?
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..
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
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.
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
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 )
an·ec·do·tal
adjective
1. pertaining to, resembling, or containing anecdotes: an anecdotal history of jazz.
2. (of the treatment of subject matter in representational art) pertaining to the relationship of figures or to the arrangement of elements in a scene so as to emphasize the story content of a subject. Compare narrative ( def. 6 ) .
3. based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.
an·ec·dote
noun, plural an·ec·dotes or, for 2, an·ec·do·ta [an-ik-doh-tuh]
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.
2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.
Three separate anecdotes do not turn it into a "viable" data set. Think of it this way...if you ever are supporting an idea and your data only includes yourself and/or people you know then it is all anecdotal evidence.
Just make sure you redistribute the wealth you gain from the sale like Obama wants you to.
BULLSHIT, it's the Republicans that are redirecting upwards on an unprecedented scale over the last 30yrs. Some balance is now required. Enough of the TRICKLE LIES.
Enough is enough.
and as for Obama you far right so-called conservatives can thank him now.
"corporate profits have surged an average of 51.8% under Obama, the best out of any stretch of party control since 1933, S&P said. Profits increased at 12.5% per year in Clinton’s White House and 14.2% under Bush.
However, the cost of new housing is much much lower than the price of a house. It takes 2 construction workers with a 5th grade education, 3 months to build an average house, for which a phd family works 30 years to pay it off. If you want to see what a fundamental cost of a house is, go to Detroit, where the median price of a house in the city is now $6,000. In 1982, the median was $47,000.
exaggerate much ?
One more thing. What do you think is a fundamental cost of printing a one hundred dollar bill? My guess it's probably less than one cent. Gold and Silver is currency. Gold and Silver is hoarded by most central banks as currency is proof that it's currency. Why hasn't the price of $100 bill dropped to its fundamental level of 1c, but you think the price of silver will?
Dunnross,
I think it's time to turn off the Peter Schiff, don't you?
I think it's time to turn off the Peter Schiff, don't you?
Why? Only because you don't like what I am saying. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
Why? Only because you don't like what I am saying. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
lol. Do you and Darrell hang out together much?
You two should get together and start a hedge fund.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 69 of 69 Search these comments
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-we-prevented-another-great-depression/1#.UFIRXI1mTyA
#politics