patrick.net

Tim Aurora says

hrhjuliet says

It's not inventory, it's price. The houses on the market are going to sit there until the prices go down.

Is that a wish, hope or dream. Anyways, you are allowed to have an opinion but until you can back it up with some kind of logic, it remains only as a wish.

It's not a wish. My home price goes down if the market goes down. I can see past my own little world though. The average home price should be about twice the median income. The market is artificially inflated and and therefore a risky investment. Only a fool would buy now. Yes, some fools will still be out there buying in this market, but that group is going to shrink. You can't make people buy at inflated prices. If you think this market is going up you are the one making wishes. At best it will flatline, but more than likely the market is going to tilt down, no matter how subtle, towards normal. The powers that be can't be can't prop up this mess forever.

A hybrid.

Behold the Champagne & Chicago Hot Dog!

Home prices should defiantly go up with these mortgages government backed.

They will very slowly lower the standards one by one.

The tapering from the Federal Reserve should also crash the precious metals markets.

Possibly strengthen dollars by a long shot and have another bubble economy.

Real estate flipping will be back. Those smart enough to quickly get in and out before the bubble pops will profit.

Another MASSIVE tech bubble should be here too like the on in 1999.

If the tech bubble collapses... The dollars will be moved to real estate.

Furthering the bubble.

During the height of the bubble. Precious metals will be all-time lows.

That's the time to acquire it. Not now.

Losses of the precious metals market maybe as much as 80% decline of gold and silver. Especially silver.

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

You are not a quack and should really not be ignored. Happy to say.

When ducks quack, people listen.

Flipping is already en vogue and tapering. It would need to heat up big time to get them back in. I feel like this subprime will benefit lower middle class more...ie those with weaker credit scores. Maybe won't help the middle and upper middle as much? And thus not be widespread?

I suppose this is the story of FHA since its inception. It should have ended within 5 years like the ownership policy that immediately preceded it (holc?). But when a "free" market becomes dependent on crack...there is only one institution able to provide endless supplies.

Never cease to be amazed at how simple everything is to Mish.

Chicago is an easy city to live in without a car, or to get around in without a car if you don't want to drive downtown (that is you take a train in or "the el.)"

This is because of taxis, which compete with eachother and have a long established system that involves regulations and licensing etc.

These new less regulated networks are great in some ways, but given the chance to grow, they could destroy or drastically hurt the ability of those in the old system to make a living driving a cab.

Then what happens ?

Will what happens automatically be whats best in the long run for the customers who currently rely on taxi cabs to get around all the time ?

The answers to these questions are not as simple as Mish would like to make them.

I can't imagine how the thinking goes. Is it something like this ?

Competition is always good, even if it totally destroys one established system, bringing in another that ultimately might not be nearly as good, for the customers or for the service providers ?

tatupu70 says

OK--at this point I don't even know what your question is. Why don't you try to clearly state it?

No, you know what the question is. You just don't know how to answer it, so you continue to obfuscate. Not gonna re-state a question I've already stated 6 or 7 times.

tatupu70 says

Because it illustrated my point.

Um, no - non sequiturs don't illustrate your point.

tatupu70 says

Of course I understand that. And I clearly stated it in my post earlier:

tatupu70 says

You obviously use the entire index value because you are comparing to a set starting point. You want to see the change from that index starting point value.

You say you understand it, yet you refused to answer my question, and instead refer me back to an earlier post. And then you accuse ME of childish nonsense. Riiiight....

Look, I've given you ample opportunity to make your case, and it is painfully obvious now that you are unable to. All you have succeeded in is getting angry and calling me names. I believe what's going on here is that somebody told you that percentages are the way to "normalize" market data, but you haven't the slightest clue how or why, and that angers you. You can't explain it because you don't really understand it yourself.

bgamall4 says

Ah, there was a lady on the emergency line saying on the day of the hoax that the rumor was it was a hoax. Been there done that Bigsby, but it won't change your mind.

You have one person, ONE, on the day of the event saying they heard it may be a hoax (presumably not meaning a massive government hoax, but a hoax as in a prank call or some such - hardly that surprising given how out of the ordinary the actual event was) and YOU think that's proof. Like I said before, how many thousands upon thousands of people do those involved know. And how many have come forward to say that they are acting? It's a simple question. What's the answer Gary?
The answer is, as with all your hoax nonsense, that you grab hold of the most tenuous of arguments like a rabid dog whilst simultaneously ignoring the absolute tidal wave of actual evidence that runs completely contrary to what you are saying. That makes you a very foolish person and one who seems to have a very loose grip on reality.

bgamall4 says

They moved in a couple of years before and most are likely gone.

Wow, some people (you claim) moved in a couple of years before (amazing) and most are likely to have gone (YOU claim, naturally with zero evidence for said claim). That's classic Gary right there.

The market health ultimately is determined by

individual investor sentiment
valuations such as price to earnings ratio and price to book ratio
inflation (i.e., commodity prices like oil and energy)
interest rates

We need to just say no to purchasing homes in this artificially inflated market.

I used inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning to reach my conclusion. My argument does not lack logic, we simply do not agree.

Homeboy says

No, you know what the question is. You just don't know how to answer it, so you continue to obfuscate. Not gonna re-state a question I've already stated 6 or 7 times

lol--after all the nonsense you've posted you refuse to post your actual question? OK then.

I've repeatedly answered it.

Homeboy says

You say you understand it, yet you refused to answer my question, and instead refer me back to an earlier post. And then you accuse ME of childish nonsense. Riiiight....

Homeboy says

All you have succeeded in is getting angry and calling me names.

Really--what names have I called you?

Homeboy says

I believe what's going on here is that somebody told you that percentages are the way to "normalize" market data, but you haven't the slightest clue how or why, and that angers you. You can't explain it because you don't really understand it yourself.

Again--percentages normalize the gains and losses. If you know that an index loses 3%--you know exactly how much money you've lost. 3% of your investment. It works for all indices, stocks, investments, etc. It's apples to apples when comparing to other indices, other time periods, other investments, etc. And you have to use the starting value and the ending value to calculate the % return. Otherwise you don't accurately calculate the % return on your investment.

The reason you use percentages is so you can calculate the return on investment which can be compared to other ROIs.

Rin says

who hang out in the Boston sports internet lounges are like PatNet, they have a real job out there, and then, this fantasy land of speculating about trade

I just did a checkup on this kid and yes, he's interested in Fantasy Sports Boston.

Sorry, but that's no career aspiration.

What were you expecting from a country that's 90% blacks?

Great report. Sounds like a great model for the future USA.

I moved out when I was 17 to live in the college dorms and have been on my own since.

Tim Aurora says

hrhjuliet says

abductive reasoning

What the heck is abductive reasoning??

Oh dear goodness, that explains a lot.

I prefer the kind of structure, built by the priviliged in D.C., Chicago, SF and NY, to benefit their way of life, be forced on those of us in flyover country, unilaterally. And of course, funded wholly on the backs of labor via fed income taxes?

Am I doing it right, sbh

Islands and especially Island Countries have very limited resources.
Especially THAT particular Island. They sould have invaded Haiti last century and stopped them from laying their whole green ecosystem into a baron dirt wasteland.

It's good that you looked at them with a judgmental eye.

When I go to those countries, I see a different perspective than folks like you do. I don't see us as superior and them as inferior and on the shitty end of the stick.

I see that in spite we're immensely more wealthy than those countries, and our poor people look like their middle class, and their rich looks like our poor.

Elitist like Obama parade around the country trying to make uninsured poor in this country seem like some travesty.

What do you give Poor people who have everything?

More shit to whine about.

bob2356 says

New Renter says

From the NHTSA:

Air bags are the NHTSA's baby, lots of paper pushers jobs depend on "proving" air bags saving lives. Gee I wonder what the NHTSA would say?

Over half the cars in 2002 had airbags yet the number of people killed PER YEAR was about the same as 1994 when almost no cars had airbags. What don't you understand about the math involved in this? I put up the wrong ilnk before www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/155.pdf

What don't you understand about the math involved in this?

From your link:

It is known with high confidence that when a crash occurs, the presence of an airbag reduces fatality risk to drivers, whether belted or unbelted.

Apparently I'm not the only one having a hard time understanding your maths

Also:
The data on which this paper is based are overwhelming on the older airbags that constituted most of those on the roads in 2003. In recent years different “depowered” and “smart” airbags have appeared. These will have different probabilities of causing and preventing harm, different costs to purchasers, and different fleet annual replacement costs, especially for passenger airbags. It will be many years before we know near as much about the effectiveness of newer
airbags than even the meager knowledge we now have about the older ones.

The author points out the available data on airbag safety is "meager". The author also focuses on the cost effectiveness of airbags as a safety technology and points out these conclusions are based on the meager data obtained from the first generation of bags. Most tech gets better and cheaper with time, especially as the initial R&D costs are amortized.

Well if inventory is at or near record lows and 43% of purchases are all-cash then a lack of mortgage applications reflects more on those two factors than a lack of buyer interest doesn't it?

CaptainShuddup says

Elitist like Obama parade around the country trying to make uninsured poor in this country seem like some travesty.

I knew could work Obama into a post about travelling in DR. I think I'll post a thread about sunspots and see what creative way you can come up with to blame sunspots on Obama. You really need to see a mental health professional about your obsession.

It shows a lack of "natural" interest in home purchases. All-cash purchasers aren't generally planning to inhabit the house themselves, so their buying is a speculative bet on either (1) natural buyers coming back to the market or (2) more demand for rentals.

I think what everyone seems to miss is that the value of housing is inseparable from the capacity of natural occupants of such houses to pay. Right now the natural purchasers of houses, particularly Millennials, are getting kicked in the ass economically. OTOH, the consensus seems to be that it's only a matter of time before "household formation" picks up and there is demand for housing.

Basically, people assume that house prices dropped because the market was illiquid during the bust and natural buyers were unable to come to market. There's certainly some truth to that view, but every year that goes by with real incomes dropping, youth unemployment remaining elevated, and student loans increasing, you have to question whether the effect was temporary or permanent.

I don't know why people treat housing differently than other consumables. You don't see people on TV talking about speculating in laundry detergent or cornering the hot dog market. People understand that you cannot become a "hot dog baron" because the value of your hot dog horde is only what the natural consumers of hot dogs have to offer after higher priority expenses are paid (e.g. taxes, student loans).

marcus says

Never cease to be amazed at how simple everything is to Mish

What'd you expect, Mush never leaves his hut due to the non-stop blog posts that he trys to somehow pass off as a news feed, and from the stupid shit he constantly spews, sounds as though he learned what little he knows of the real world AND Chicago by watching Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

CaptainShuddup says

My point is, we'll be bailing out Pepsi and Coke before we know it.

The to big to Gulp act.

We already do with SNAP(food stamps).

New Renter says

Apparently I'm not the only one having a hard time understanding your maths

The writer didn't have any trouble with his math, you just have trouble acknowledging it. Let's do this slowly. In 1995 hardly any cars had airbags with 41,817 fatalites. In 2003 half the cars had airbags with 42,882 fatalities. All for a cost out of pocket to car buyers of only 54 billion 1993 to 2003. Am I going to fast for you?

Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles went down 2% in the 50's. 0% in the 60's, 1.5% in the 70's, 1.3% in the 80's, .5% in the 90's, .4% in 2000's and up .03% 2011-2013. Where is the big decrease in the last 20 years from airbags, abs, and esc? I don't see it, could you point it out?

New Renter & Bob, wasn't this thread about young adults living with their parents?

How did it turn into an automotive safety debate?

It's all Obama's fault!!!

The Internet is about outrage, plus taking everything in as negative and personal a light as possible.

And, yes, that's an outrage! Can you believe what those bastards did - is there no justice?!

When were charts ever wrong?

Eggheads!

What the hell did they ever know?

Interesting report, what took you to Santo Domingo was this pure leisure?

HEY YOU says

Bush/Republicans bailed out the TBTF.

God damn It! I just knew I could count on you!
So we're in agreement that there's no difference between Bush and Obama. Good point!

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/14/home-prices-must-drop-40-more-to-reach-normal-affordability-lev/
http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-10/cheap-mortgages-are-hiding-the-truth-about-home-priceshttp://www.mybudget360.com/buying-a-home-in-america-today-is-expensive-thanks-to-the-banking-sector-examining-income-and-home-prices-from-1950-to-the-present-can-home-prices-fall-another-38-percent/
Or, if you don't believe what is posted on line or historical graphs, ask dad. That's right ask dad, mom, grandpa, grandma your in-laws or any friend who bought before the ninties. Ask if they spent somewhere around twice their income. I dare you. You are not going to like the answer. I asked dad, grandpa and my great-grandma, they all answered without guile: a little over or a little under twice their income.

In the words of my grandpa, "Only fools, gamblers and trust fund babies buy above twice their income!". Well, grandpa, sorry to report that we must have a lot of people who fall into those three groups. Don't trust national or census statistics? Don't trust the internet? Fine, I take them all with grain of salt myself, but you really can't trust dear old dad or grandma? Now that would be sad. I dare you all, ask them.

upisdown says

CaptainShuddup says

My point is, we'll be bailing out Pepsi and Coke before we know it.

The to big to Gulp act.

We already do with SNAP(food stamps).

And corn subsidies that make HFCS cheaper than sugar, which is why sodas in the US market have HFCS while the same brand in other countries has sugar.

Why does Coke and Pepsi charge more for to not put all of the other ingredients that Makes Coke, Coke or Pepsi, Pepsi.

You pay more the inert ingredient Water than you do with all of that other crap.

I quit drinking Soda over the last 10 years with out really ever trying. I just phased it out by finding my self drinking it less and less. When I do drink a soda, which is rarer than once or twice a year. I find them so sweet from the HFCS, that I can't stand them.

Those Pepsi brand throw backs they distributed a few years back. Tasted more like what I remember soft drinks tasting like. Light and refreshing. More fizz up your nose, than sweet slimy phlegm in the back of your throat. A thirst quencher and not dehydrator.

I would drink those or brands like it, if they just used plain cane sugar instead.

I imagine pretty soon most Cane sugar will be replaced with HFCS, or they will blend the two to make a cheap disgusting sweet like substance that supposed to be Sugar, but everyone will know it's a piss poor example of Sugar. We'll be given some schpeil about how cane sugar is so expensive because all of the cane plantations around the world. Have been developed for Chinese summer homes. So our consumption of HFCS will rise, and so will our obesity and diabetes rates, in spite of quadrillion a year we'll be pumping into "education", "Preventative" and "Propaganda" and blah blah blah what all else, you guys like to use for excuses as to why Healthcare costs are rising.
But in the meantime some Corn based sweetener company will be as big as Google, and the Government will give them trillions every year. TO make sure that more poison gets pumped into the food supply, that they can then Sin tax to death.

thomaswong.1986 says

Once you get into Tech, you find your not the only kid on the block and Tech employers are global with distributed workforce... which we compete and sometimes loose to DRAM Business is all Japanese control... it was otherwise only true in the 80s we had all our workforce locally, the number of employers and employees is shrinking...

Are you saying the DRAM business is controlled by Japanese companies? Here's a recent article describing how 90% of DRAM market share is under three companies:
http://www.dramexchange.com/WeeklyResearch/Post/2/3600.html
Those three companies are Hynix (South Korean), Samsung (South Korean), and Micron (US). The standards body that represents DRAM is JEDEC, which has members from all over, but the biggest pull is probably from Intel (US). I agree that it's a global marketplace, but it just seems weird to have you describe DRAM business as under Japanese control.

hrhjuliet, ... Yes!
See here what the establishment will keep out of sight of the people.
The Public Be Suckered
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886