patrick.net

Bellingham Bob says

toothfairy says

The trend is pretty consistent

the trend is dead.

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

let me guess...new paradigm?...this time its different? Thats what they said when prices were going up too.

Michinaga says

I'm terrified that inflation will mean that housing prices, and consumer prices in general, could double or triple in that period, if not worse.

Nada. House prices are based on healthy credit market. Healthy credit market happens 1)when there is underlying support of wages which is completely missing 2) or else days of NINJA loans return. Currently both are missing. Inflation in house prices is zero possibility in near future,even with rock bottom rates.

bubblesitter says

Inflation in house prices is zero possibility in near future,even with rock bottom rates.

You dont pay higher prices for homes anymore.. you pay to live near polution free air, better weather, better 4 year schools, better shopping centers, resturants, intellectually smarter nieghbors, and all the other marketing gimicks the REA can come up with. You also pay so prices never go down... bigger fool theory...

What will be the marketing gimicks in 2020-2025 ? I dont know.

toothfairy says

let me guess...new paradigm?

no -- failure of the new paradigm

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1K1

shrekgrinch says

Cornholio will soon start ripping into you for daring to piss all over the sacred cow known as ObamaCare.

No, I only comment when people say stupid or uninformed things (regardless of ideology or topic). I don't think anyone actually disagrees with Bob's statement -- it's at least partly true. Nothing sacred about it -- it's just annoying when people make ignorant strawman comments about anything or make false claims that are easily shown to be false to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

In addition, there seem to be a large number of people who speak without knowing anything about Obamacare, as they do for many other topics, and these people largely focus quite transparently on talking points, rather than referring to specific aspects of the legislation. I seem to remember user saying "we don't know what's in ObamaCare" which was particularly unsophisticated because the law has been published for a quite a while now and this was a very old talking point.

The last point I'd make is that most people complaining about Obamacare didn't complain about the Republican Congress' plan back in the 90s that was almost exactly the same. I often wonder why that is.

shrekgrinch says

It's already happening. Just wait for Facebook to IPO for $100 billion or so.

Not sure about this. First of all, I don't think anyone thinks it's worth $100B. Even the Goldman valuation was reported as $50B, but is more like $38B if you do the math.

Second, Facebook does have a decent number of employees, maybe 2000 or so, but they're not all in the Bay Area -- unclear how many are.

Third, the dotcom boom-correlated Bay Area real estate boom happened when there were several companies with IPOs that were legit companies and many many multiples of crappy companies that had IPOs anyway (one of which currently is Groupon, although that's a Chicago company). So far the least impressive company to have an IPO is Pandora (based in Oakland, not Silicon Valley or SF), and that's partly because their business model isn't secure, but there haven't been a steady stream of low quality companies have IPOs pumping more and more cash into the local market, nor do there appear to be a stream of them on the horizon.

Fourth, the vast majority of Facebook stock will be held by co-founders, key executives, VC funds, and a few big institutional and other big stockholders, and not by employees. Obviously the early employees will have more, but many rank and file people won't have all that much.

None of this is really the same as back in the day -- we are seeing a limited number of high quality companies that are in the pipeline, such as Zynga, but not that many low quality companies.

FortWayne says

And tulips haven't risen in price either if you know what I'm referring to.

Big difference between HOUSES and TULIPS.. you can't live and raise a family in a tulip!

Comparing the housing bubble to the tulip bubble is a little ridiculous.

toothfairy says

This is the chart Im looking at. The trend is pretty consistent. And if youre in California like me we tend to be above trend in price appreciation

Don't place too much faith in charts, especially super long term ones like that. They're great measuring sticks, but that is all they are. You have to consider the history that chart represents too (ie. post WWII and GD the economy was very different than the pre 1920's, and during the pre 1920's the country was still expanding quite a bit into essentially empty land or land that had been forcibly emptied by the military, avg. people routinely put down 50% on a home or even bought outright) and remember that future will likely not at all be a repeat of the past. The past doesn't repeat, it rhymes with the future.

You also have to consider stuff like where wages will be, and how much debt people will likely have, and if we're entering a prolonged L shaped recession (IOW depression) like Japan has been in since the late 1980's.

Most people don't want to consider any of that, its too difficult and scary to think of a future in those terms, but those are real possibilities that your chart doesn't not contain.

anyone that says anything other than "i don't know" is fooling themselves.

- no one can predict even 1 year out
- every year introduces additional error.
- 25 years later the errors compound so the predictions are completely useless

That's not a very nice thing to say about RomneyCare.

Let's see, Facebook has about 1,700 times as many distinct viewers per month as Patrick.net, so Patrick.net should be worth $100B / 1,700 = $58.8 million!

Unfortunately, that assumes a linear relationship between the value of web site and its viewership.

One of the popular variants of Metcalf's Law says, "The community value of a network grows as the square of the number of its users increase." However, I believe even this is incorrect.

A better model would be a Logistic Growth Curve. The value of a network or website at first increases exponentially, but then value/growth slows down as it reaches a horizontal asymptote at 100% of the population.

Of course, one Apocalypsefuck is worth a thousand regular viewers.

Los Angeles Renter says

Others are less optimistic and see prices heading back to mid-1990s prices and staying there until 2025.

I like how you refer to this as "less optimistic". I would call that the more optimistic view. Would you say it is pessimistic to believe that gas prices will remain under $4/gallon for the next few years?

Los Angeles Renter says

I've read some predictions that we wont reach 2006 bubble prices again in Los Angeles until 2024.

Adjusted for inflation, I don't think we'll see housing prices at their 2006 level in any of our lifetimes. And that's a good thing. Why should shelter be so unaffordable? Would we want tulips to ever reach their 1637 inflation adjusted prices?

Dealers refused to honor contracts and people began to realize they traded their homes for a piece of greenery; panic and pandemonium were prevalent throughout the land. The government attempted to step in and halt the crash by offering to honor contracts at 10% of the face value, but then the market plunged even lower, making such restitution impossible. No one emerged unscathed from the crash. Even the people who had locked in their profit by getting out early suffered under the following depression. Investopedia

Wow, that exact same stuff happened in America between 2006 and 2011!

Los Angeles Renter says

What types of effect on our society would 30 years of zero housing appreciation have?

People would be able to spend a greater percentage of their income on non-housing related purchases like restaurants, vacations, clothing, jewelry, automobiles, electronics, and the rest of the 96% of the economy that is not housing.

Bankruptcy law expert and Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Warren spent a lot of time crunching consumer spending numbers for her popular books, "The Fragile Middle Class” and “The Two-Income Trap.” In both, she makes this point: Despite all those $200 sneakers you hear about and the long lines at Starbucks, consumers are actually spending less of their income — much less — on discretionary items like clothing, entertainment and food than their parents did. In fact, after taking care of essentials like housing and health care, today’s middle class has about half as much spending money as their parents did in the early 1970s, Warren says.

The basics, according to Warren, now take up close to three-fourths of every family's spending power (it was about 50 percent in 1973), leaving precious little left over at the end of the month — and leaving many families with no cushion in case of a job loss or health crisis.

Life is harder now -- MSNBC

So, if families didn't have to spend so much on housing, they could spend more on other things. And that would be the best stimulus possible.

So basically, life was better in 1973 when people dressed like this.

thomas.wong1986 says

you pay to live near polution free air, better weather, better 4 year schools, better shopping centers, resturants, intellectually smarter nieghbors, and all the other marketing gimicks the REA can come up with.

I don't get the gimmick part. Those are all things that have value to some people, so why wouldn't they pay more to get them?

Time does not exist ! 2025 may bring NO BUYERS, or MULTIPLE OFFERS ??? if the latter is true, we will again be spending time back on Patrick.net !!! We could all be doing our laundry in a river, hopefully upstream of the pig farmer.

Housing prices will spike again only when someone invents a SURPRISE implement that everyone in the free world wants to buy and is anxious to spend about $2,000 ea. and replace that model with a new one every year or two while that new invention is evolving to reach its peak performance. ( it took the computer from 1983 to 2006 )(coincides wit housing) Then b.r.i.c. will improvise and housing will collapse. This story is boring, it is too simple. We need to move on, learn to take the holding power away from banks, freddie and fannie, find some contractors ready to build realistically priced housing. No land you say ? Go fer a plane ride dufus.

Can anybody name ANY invention that generated ONE TENTH of the revenue that the computer did ?

Los Angeles Renter says

we would have 30 years of ZERO housing appreciation from

Thats correct L.A.R.... Generation present, sucked all the appreciation potential out of the real estate market for the next several generations.... Its probably a good thing seeing as how we may be living in their home for the rest of their time.

Their philosophy was,,,, it does not matter what you pay for it,,, it will be worth %20 more next year. Justify that !

My bet is that we will see a new currency system by then and we probably won't be valuing houses in dollars.

toothfairy says

This is the chart Im looking at. The trend is pretty consistent.

Yes, 1973 was way better to me. This isn't a style site so the clothing of that man is irrelevant. 1973 housing prices is where I see prices settling, (and if the gold standard returns IMHO will likely remain.) I see clearly from this chart the gross insanity of the past 35 years in terms of residential real estate pricing. Adjusted for inflation is IMHO is just more manipulated bullshit semantics to get a person to pay more for something that essentially has not changed in value (the burst has shown that one.) If the gold standard wasn't taken off the table that phrase would not exist. The problems today started when the masses and others bought into the idea of manipulation of a house as a vehicle to make fast money (there is the glitch right there.) A house is not a bank, it is not an investment to me. It is to be lived in with the opportunity to sell it in the future. End of story. I also recommend reading "31 Days" by Barry Werth.

Over the long term, it isn't possible for house prices to rise any faster in REAL (i.e. inflation-adjusted) terms than peoples' REAL incomes. Am I right? Even if you have a highly desirable area (say a waterfront), prices there can't rise any faster than the average ability to pay. Even billionaires don't have unlimited resources. Indeed, it was arguably the desirable areas (coastal CA and FL) which saw the biggest bubble.

The whole notion that a house can produce wealth is bunk. A house is a consumer good that slowly depreciates and needs constant maintainence (not to mention insurance and property taxes). Factories, refineries, farms, and working businesses produce wealth...not houses.

Unfortunately over the last two decades we've sent much of the wealth-producing sector overseas. It seems our economy is now based on little more than speculation and gambling, er...I mean..."finance."

I believe we are headed for serious deflation in the short term and than even more serious inflation in the long term. Prices could actually be much much higher nominally in 2020 - 2025, but much lower after adjusted for inflation. The key is, when will we switch from deflation to inflation ? If we continue our present course of keeping zombie banks on life support, while the housing market slowly deflates, at the present rate, it should be around 2017-2018. Keep your eye on precious metals, especially gold and silver and their historical relationship to the dow. IMHO once that trend reverses, it's time to pull the trigger on RE and buy. By 2020-2025 the % of those buying houses will be less than those renting.

www.westsideremeltdown.blogspot.com

www.santamonicameltdownthe90402.blogspot.com

No one has offered me even a measly million.

Irish songs are made up of HAPPY WARS and SAD LOVE AFFAIRS. Most people turn away from the painful truth(s). Fight the good fight any way Patrick.

Patrick says:
'Hmmm, something must be wrong in my calculations. No one has offered me even a measly million. In fact, no one has offered anything.' Isn't it interesting how there's so little market for reality? Maybe it's the format. Try turning it into a 'show'.

In 2020 what will have happened will seem obvious, everyone will be able to look back and explain exactly why it happened that way.

You know what we'll call it ?

2020 hindsight.

Los Angeles Renter says

FortWayne says

And tulips haven't risen in price either if you know what I'm referring to.

Big difference between HOUSES and TULIPS.. you can't live and raise a family in a tulip!

Comparing the housing bubble to the tulip bubble is a little ridiculous.

Comparison lies in underlying value. Everything comes back to what it's worth on the free market. Building a box with a door isn't exactly rocket science, just like growing a tulip.

Nope it is not rocket science....You can use the innate desire most humans have for a safe space, their creativity. their territoriality, and competitive nature, to take advantage of them. But first you must get them to let you counterfeit the legal tender. Of course you don't have to take advantage..but if that's YOUR nature....

Los Angeles Renter says

Big difference between HOUSES and TULIPS.. you can't live and raise a family in a tulip!

Comparing the housing bubble to the tulip bubble is a little ridiculous.

You're analysis would be correct if people only bought houses with the intent to live in them. In Florida, most of the speculators didn't live in Florida. Many of them didn't even live in North America.

Even now as knife catchers hope for a rebound, most of the speculators do not live in Florida. People were buying houses with no intent to live in them or even see the houses. They just wanted to flip.

In this respect, the housing bubble was very much like the tulip bubble.

about 3-5 times your annual wage.

TMAC54 says

Can anybody name ANY invention that generated ONE TENTH of the revenue that the computer did ?

Uh...the wheel.

swebb says

thomas.wong1986 says
you pay to live near polution free air, better weather, better 4 year schools, better shopping centers, resturants, intellectually smarter nieghbors, and all the other marketing gimicks the REA can come up with.

I don't get the gimmick part. Those are all things that have value to some people, so why wouldn't they pay more to get them?

No one in the past over paid. Condos in SF near SOMO lets say were equally priced to condos in southbay. The most expensive homes in my town of LG were far away from everything. Up on the hills.

shrekgrinch says

We know now...one big fat UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I've already shown on multiple threads that you don't know anything about constitutional law. Let's not rehash that in the RE forum.

No one has offered me even a measly million. In fact, no one has offered anything.

You could always sell out and put AdSense revenue all over these forums.

thomas.wong1986 says

Paying an inflated prices for 5% revalues the other 95%. This is what actual happened over the past 5-6 years.

I don't disagree with this. It's sort of true -- even Goldman's stake was fairly small for large $$$ (of course, they'll get a nice piece of that back).

toothfairy says

just a guess based it on the last housing crash that ended in 94. 10 years later in 2004 prices had more than doubled.

The last housing bust ended more like 1996/1997. Still had crazy prices 10 years later, but due to two consecutive bubbles. That's not really a great example.

However, you're more likely to be accurate than my friend who in the opening months of the bust thought prices would zoom off into the stratosphere again 6 months later after this "brief pause." The bulk of the losses that friend saw were likely after that prediction, and they were substantial.

shrekgrinch says

When Facebook gets its $100 billion (and it will get it), it will have a war chest to go shopping for smaller startups that will make Google look like a lightweight in comparison.

Actually, I doubt Facebook will get anywhere near $100B in *cash*. If you look carefully at Pandora, you'll see that their market cap at IPO was $2.6B, but they received less than 1/10 of that in cash for the IPO because they were only offering a limited number of new shares.

shrekgrinch says

Thanks to SoX, most won't but instead will get bought.

That's really more of a talking point. If you look at IPOs per year, it has had a much smaller effect than the talking points say. The downturn in the economy has had far worse an effect on IPOs. Just compare 2004-2006 to the dotcom years when things were far frothier.

corntrollio says

You could always sell out and put AdSense revenue all over these forums.

I did try putting AdSense ads in the header of every page, but less than one click per 10,000 page views. Truly abysmal revenue, like $3/day.

Makes me wonder if Google really has the revenue it says it does.

Anyway, it's still a lot of fun fighting the debt-mongers.

commonsense says

Yes, 1973 was way better to me.

Then you must not be one of the persons who's got some liberation since then.

Dan8267 says

A better model would be a Logistic Growth Curve. The value of a network or website at first increases exponentially, but then value/growth slows down as it reaches a horizontal asymptote at 100% of the population.

Of course, one Apocalypsefuck is worth a thousand regular viewers.

So then the question is how to draw in more viewers. Maybe some better invitation system, where current users get credit by inviting outsiders to join?

Apocalypsefuck's comments make it all worthwhile even without getting paid.

If you add patrick.net to google plus, I'll share it with others. Maybe others would do the same.

After all this site provides a great benefit to it's readers through information which otherwise isn't available. This site saved me quite a lot of money and headaches.

So then the question is how to draw in more viewers.

Join Phils Gang .com ?

Are you familiar with Phil Grandy ? He Has a radio talk show at noon on 1220 am. His moniker is the guy who tells the public what Wall Street and the Government DON'T want you to know.
I truly believe he would mention this site on his talk show.

St Patrick won't work, Atheists also want the truth.

Or advertize on porn sites. You could aks "Wanna get screwed" ? Maybe offer real estate courses online ?

So then the question is how to draw in more viewers. Maybe some better invitation system, where current users get credit by inviting outsiders to join?

That's essentially what a multilevel marketing company does: crowd-sources recruitment in a pyramid pattern.

Another technique to draw in customers is to add a little nudity to the site. That always seems to work.

But the best way, of course, is to maximize your page rank for relevant terms. Patrick.net is currently the fourth Google result for "housing bubble". However, fewer people are searching for "housing bubble" these days according to Google Trends.

So my advice would be to seek out which terms are currently popular with buyers, sellers, and renters and try to maximize your page rank on those terms. How to do this is outside of my areas of expertise. I do know that having SEO-friendly URLs helps a lot though.

Funny thing about the above graph, I just noticed... The popular news only started reporting about the housing bubble a year after it bursts and long after people stop searching for "housing bubble". That seems to say something important.