invite responseComments 1 - 6 of 6 Search these comments
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.
It's yet another lobby that is trying to protect jobs. Interests rates are held down maximize employment. The dual purpose Fed mission continues unabated by facts.
It's yet another lobby that is trying to protect jobs. Interests rates are held down maximize employment.
If that's the case, screw them. These are jobs that should have been eliminated years ago -- largely rent-seeking here.
These are jobs that should have been eliminated years ago -- largely rent-seeking here.
The Fed finds it an effecient allocation of limited resources.
There is no doubt though. Realtors help spread inflation to any as many people with capital as possible.
bubblesitter
2011 Jul 29, 9:49am
hey should provide 0% down for 1st time home buyers with no PMI
Actually in these tough times with very few jobs it should be negative percent down,meaning people with no money and jobs should be given money for down payment and should be prefered over people with jobs and down payment.
Edzakory
2011 Jul 29, 10:29am
Better yet, the Realtors® can use their “Open House†signs on all foreclosed properties to attract vagrants and downtrodden people.
The Bankers would provide a great service to society by allowing the poor to have a place to live while allowing shadow inventory time to diminish and prices to stabilize.. The occupants would obtain squatters rights and if you’ve seen “Pacific Heightsâ€, it takes an act of God to have someone evicted from their home.
Other than the sign, I haven’t come up with any value the Realtors® bring to the table. I’m still working on that one.
bubblesitter
2011 Jul 29, 1:41pm
Since we're at it, I am sure that unconditional government checks for free rent would help too.
That does not involve a realtor so it is out of question but thanks for your nice gesture. :)
These used house salesmen never give up, although this article is somewhat poorly written:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Return-of-20-Home-Down-tsmf-506551024.html
The poorly written part is that it's not to get ANY mortgage loan, but rather a government-backed mortgage loan. Why should we continue to subsidize banksters who can't evaluate risk properly?
So basically, these realtors are fighting going back to traditional Prime lending standards. Their rationale?
If it really takes that long to save 10% in the vast majority of the US, those people shouldn't even be buying houses in the first place because they can barely afford a bad month or two. The median in the US is around $220K, so the NAR is making the implausible argument that it takes most house-buying people almost 10 years to save between let's say $8K and $22K. On the lower end, that's pathetic. While that may be a statement of how debt-induced and how savings-deprived we are, it also shows that many people aren't good candidates to buy houses.
If they aren't good candidates to buy houses, why should we subsidize banksters who are stupid enough to take on these loans? Moreover, it's not that they can't get these loans at all, but rather that they'd have to pay a higher interest rate. Why should high risk people be entitled to a low interest rate?
One of the best correlations to a high default rate is a low down payment. 3-5%, as these corrupt folks are suggesting, is absurdly low.
#housing