patrick.net

A different angle to the bearish view.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1774740,00.html

This fellow (Larry Elliott) says US housing market and US$ is in trouble. But says falling US$ means falling oil and commodity prices. Logic seems to be is US$ falls, exporting economies will slow down and demand for commodities will drop. This was also given as one of the reasons in many news stories today about the drop in commodity and gold prices.

Interestingly at the end he says, sell US$ and buy bonds ? Huh ? If US$ is going to devalue, why should I buy bonds ? Maybe he means UK bonds ??

OO-

Well, I voted for him and still support him. I think he's doing an excellent job all things considered, and will go down in history as one of the greats.

With respect to income inequaltiy, that has been increasing largely unabated since 1967. Anyone who claims that the current administration is responsible for this, or has worsened matters in any appreciable way, simply isn't aware of the facts. See the Census Bureau income inequality figures at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf

(these are through 1998, the data lag by quite a bit.)

Notice that the trend did not reverse at all during the Clinton and Carter administrations. The gap just kept on widening.

The trend toward increasing income inequality is not something that can be viewed along party lines. It has been happening for the last four decades.

Surfer-X
You took your pics off your blog!
I was gonna leave a comment!
Oh, well.
At least we know now that your outsides
aren't nearly as rough as your insides. ;)
Well, thanks for the glimpse, anyway.

OO,

Astrid put it more eloquently, but it's the big 3 G's that motivate voters in that region: God, Guns & Gays. If you think I'm kidding then let me take you on a tour of my hometown.

My father-in-law is a farmer. A grain farmer. He effectively loses money farming, only staying afloat with tax breaks and never ending gov't guaranteed loans. He's seen farm subsidies decrease for family farms while increasing for factory farms during the past 6 years. He's seen Dutch dairy farmers move in an drive out virtually all the local family dairy operations. This list goes on.

He still is a fervent supporter of Bush. He'll tell you with an air of nothing but pure innocent honesty that Bush is the only man to do something about foreigners taking advantage of America. He'll tell you about how Bush has helped to spare Toledo from being burned to the ground by sacrilegious Islamists. My mother-in-law will tell you that "Bush simply has a good soul", with a self-enlightened righteous smile on her face.

I seldom venture into the domain of politics, but I'll say here that this phenomenon is the failure of the Democrats much more than the triumph of the Republicans. If the Democrats cannot win over a working poor, family farming, screwed by big-everything, Wal-mart hating Midwestern farmer who thinks that unions were a good thing (and that they're waning today only because of unfair Japanese competition) then they just don't deserve to run anything more important than a minor league school board.

And just for the record, I am aggressively non-partisan; I'm an equal-opportunity critic.

FRIFY,

I like your reasoning, but warn you that the interjection of facts and logic into the conversation is hazardous. You may yet feel the wrath of a postmodernist deconstruction of your argument that will leave you drinking shots of Jameson alone in the dark.

Nothing can be done about this trend. Don’t even think about reversing the Bush tax cuts, that will only make things worse.

Huh? What is it about growing income inequality that's so inherently sacrosanct? Income inequality has always existed to varying degrees in every society and under every economic system yet invented by mankind, true --I'm not disputing this. But what makes the recent trend towards greater inequality so inevitable? Aren't governments, compensation schemes and taxes purely artificial human-created constructs that we can re-design and tinker with as we see fit (in theory anyway ;-) ) ?

And if there really is some kind of natural law that predestines all societies to invariably progress towards more inequality over time, then why should I even bother worrying about it? According to this (suspect) theory, then all the world's wealth will eventually end up in a single pair of hands, regardless of what we as a society do or I do as an individual, right?

Sounds a tad too fatalistic for me.

Owneroccupier,

I saw nothing to erase. Wordpress must have triggered an auto-delete.

@FRIFY,

Ok, got it --D'oh!
(in Emily Latella voice): Never mind...

Surfer,

you da man. Did anyone tell you that you actually look like John Travolta? Rock on.

astrid,

ok, what are the things that I should do to avoid triggering auto-delete?

I wish I knew! A couple of my comments had been scrubbed out.

ok, what are the things that I should do to avoid triggering auto-delete?

@OO,

Avoid the terms "always goes up", "new paradigm" and "permanently high plateau". Those'll get your comments deleted every time :mrgreen:

HARM,

Are you forcing me to delete your last comment? ;)

LOL - those were for demonstration purpose only!

Surfer-X Says:
My new blog is here:
(erased per surfer-x's request)

very good, puts mine to shame... mine is missing that edge, that certain je ne sais quoi...

btw, people can feel free to visit my blogspot as attached on my nick and put lots of comments murmuring in agreement to make it look busy, so I don't have to make lots of sock-puppet IDs and do it myself -- I only created it to scare local politicians (they'll never read this), but will do a BIG website before the next state election in 1 year -- they are quaking...

Good news: I actually got a call on the mobile yesterday from a Labor Senator in person re a Hansard comment I queried concerning the Greens (sensible) affordable housing policies, and she listened to the WHOLE STORY for half an hour, from low interest rates, permeability of markets, OECD reports, liberalised credit, increasing rates of investment, looming micro- and macro-economic disaster, problems with BTRs, etc etc. So you can just bet that the gubmint will start building thousands of cost-controlled affordable places from this moment on, and pretty soon the impetus and ideas will spread to the whole world and prices will come down everywhere. No, don't thank me, it was the least I could do...

Seriously, tho, is there any value in creating a co-op or similar group to try to develop affordable housing as infill or greenfield? either that or use it as a political lobby -- write a petition to some politicians requesting they do something useful. I'm tempted to try to create an umbrella company where the state govt more or less grants you land to do an affordable housing project...

OK, let me try again. I promise there will be no more aforementioned terms.

I was just commenting on the comparison of various up and coming countries as a response to astrid's comment on free healthcare and education. I was saying that if I were forced to leave this country for any political or economic or personal safety reasons, the only other country I will be looking at is Australia, and here is why. Oh DS is here, so he can comment on my reasonings.

Downside first: Australia is a beach country, flat as a pancake. Avid skiers will feel more fulfilled by hopping on a plane ride to Queenstown across the strait. There are also thousands of yet-to-be classified bugs and scorpions with enough venom to kill you within seconds. You get the picture.

OO
The wind chill effect usually adds another 20-30 Farenheit on the negative side.

Is that like housing prices having a retrograde price appreciation? "Prices went up at a negative rate this quarter"...

Since many multinationals place their Asia Pacific HQs in Australia, so the job aspects are quite good given the 20M population base. Now of course you cannot compare the job aspect of Australia to that of the US, because the population size is not there. However, this is the largest quarry, gold mine of the world with more than enough natural gas and uranium to go around, plus a substantial agricultural base, so QOL in terms of self-sufficient survival is guaranteed.

While Australian universities are not as good as the first class American colleges, I would say the Great 8 (or is this the term?) rank along with the likes of UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis etc. There are more than 10 home grown Australian Nobel laureats in science subjects, more than half of them in the area of medical science. For some reason, Australia is particularly strong in biological research and medical science, they rank right after the world class research institutes here like UCSF, Harvard etc.

Downside first: Australia is a beach country, flat as a pancake. Avid skiers will feel more fulfilled by hopping on a plane ride to Queenstown across the strait. There are also thousands of yet-to-be classified bugs and scorpions with enough venom to kill you within seconds. You get the picture.

oh, timing is everything...

altho there is the 'great dividing range', aka the blue mountains, the snow mountains, on the east coast that runs from qld to victoria, that creates ski fields within a day's drive of some of the major cities. 'global warming' [sic] is making them a bit mushy these days, though...

every major city is on the coast near beaches. perth is meant to be very pleasant, good weather, nice size, just the most isolated city on earth by distance... commodities in western australia keep the perth economy buoyant...

melbourne has been voted world's most liveable city several times in the international visiting executives thingy...

healthcare is fairly benevolent, as is the welfare system...

i dunno -- has its downside as well... small popn, insular, anti-intellectual, colonial...

Another surprise for me is, Australia's road system is amazingly good. Public transportation is well developed in metro areas, just like Boston and NYC. You can get away with not driving at all if you live in the top 5 cities.

People are genuinely nice, mostly middle class, and laid back. Australia has also benefited tremendously from imported talents from UK, India and China, particularly those from UK. Lots of 20 somethings were priced out in UK in their housing bubble so they head for the former colony in search of a new life, and based on my observation, most of them are quite happy with their new motherland. Australia is also bordered by ocean, so there is no issue of massive inflow of illegal immigration, if one can make it through the poinsonous stingers and sharks to set foot on Australia, I think the country should give him some credit. Poverty is mainly confined to the aboriginals, which is a very small part of the population.

If Aussies play their cards right, I think they have a hell of a future ahead of them. The biggest problem facing Australia is the lack of water, which is the main constraint on population growth on areas beyond the two coasts. If desalination can be economical going forward and the natural limit on population growth can be lifted, Australia can obviously accommodate far more people.

Also, the best parts of Australia,IMHO, are not Sydney or Melbourne. The fastest growth areas are Perth and Brisbane. Perth's weather is almost identical to the bay area, except a bit drier, so you may be put on water rationing every summer. Sydney is probably the dirtiest and most polluted part of Australia.

So what I am saying is, if you want to look for examples of well-run countries elsewhere, Australia may be a good speciman to study.

I know what the damn word is that gets my message deleted automatically. It is So-ciali-st. What the hell!

Shit --you're right, OO!
I tried So-cial-ist and So-cial-ism and both triggered the delete!

Bullworth:
"Yeah, yeah
You can call it single-payer or Canadian way
Only socialized medicine will ever save the day!
Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word - SOCIALISM!"

If Aussies play their cards right, I think they have a hell of a future ahead of them.

I agree. In case there is a nuclear war, it is going to be relatively safe down south.

I agree. In case there is a nuclear war, it is going to be relatively safe down south.

hmm, guess who supplied the uranium....

Sydney is probably the dirtiest and most polluted part of Australia.

Sydney is nice is if you have a yacht, a $10 million place on Middle Harbour, and perhaps a helicopter to make dealing with the traffic congestion easier. Otherwise just invest in a chauffeur so you can keep working in Military Rd traffic jams. Of course, then you would own a TV station and a stable of magazines or newspapers...

CME housing futures will start trading on 5/22.

Sydney is nice is if you have a yacht,...

How is Gold Coast?

How is Gold Coast?

hmm, also nice if you have a yacht. if you like hot weather and don't mind getting skin cancer, it's OK. not been to qld much, but some people don't like it - qld was described to me as 'too many blokes walking round with beards', i.e. fairly mediocre small-town mindset. and there's high rise condos right on the beach, many originally two-tier marketed. in fact, qld was the home of the two-tier property marketing scam, used to get naiive investors (from sydney or NZ work best) to overpay $50K for investment properties...

but i suppose it could also be a laid-back tropical paradise, just depends what you find there to like, heh... it's a warm place to retire on a reduced income for many, much like florida once was/is... qld has a lot of nice old weatherboard places on stilts for cooling, which are similar in design to US frame houses...

Peter P,

I'm still working on a macro "hedge" model for CME Housing Futures. Check by cap20 sometime next week (hopefully) when I have something we can kick around.

I'm thinking something along the lines of a macro hedge fund approach which follows a RE macro model but exploits the internal correlations between RE and other trade-able concerns.

Frify,
perhaps I misunderstood the context of your comments above, but in the statement you made about "red state republicans voting against their economic intrests, as they are poorer", I'm not sure if I neccesarily agree, as this is more of a state to state case. I can tell you in the case if TN, TX and NC- both republican states-that I can't think of a government that has been more aggressive in encouraging new growth. Lamar Alexander (republican) and Bill Purcell( democrat) recently spent the last few years flying back and forth to LA negotiating with Nissan, which they suceeded in getting North American operations moved to Nashville. TN alone spends millions in producing educational materials for companies and individual citizens who have moving to a more affordable place on their mind. The state also makes huge tax breaks for out of state companies moving in. NC is the same. All I have to mention is the I-80 tech corridor, which is on of the fastest growing tech and research sectors in the country to point to evidence of the sucess that NC has had in converting their economy from being heavily reliant on textiles to technology in less than 10 years.TX has several cities that are breaking into the entertainment and games sectors. I can't tell you how many agencies I've discovered that were once in CA and now reside in Austin. TX is also another section of the country that's having record growth in manufactoring and tech research. Clear Channel is the biggest media advertiser in the world, and they're located in Houston, which is yet one more city that's on the top 10 list this year in Forbe's magazine.
Put frankly, it isn't that hard to make a point to any company in CA that costs would be cheaper in any other state. Just the tax and electricity savings is in the millions. Employee cost is substantially lower, and the kicker is that even if you are paying your employees less, even if you move them to another region, they are still going to be able to afford more than they ever could here.
If there was any state that is doing the least to stop businesses from hemoraging from their borders, it's California and Arnold. The state has the most crippling taxes, the highest environmental costs, the highest developmental costs, the highest employee cost, and the list goes on and on. I can't think of anything else to describe CA's business model other than stupid. Eventually, the rest of the country will( and to some extent) is catching up to California's level of technological expertise. When they do, there will be no competitioin, and if California wants to stay at all competitive, either they'll have to cut salaries in half, or find something else to make money in. Either that or they'll just trade houses back and forth like they've been doing for the last 5 years.

George,

It's hard for me to resist these "where's the body" HB crime scene investigation type comments. Some of the "Clouseau-esque" observations would have made Peter Sellers himself proud! They ask, no DEMAND to be escorted to the scene of the crime, shown the point of entry, evidence of the struggle, exhibit A (the fireplace poker) complete with matching fingerprints, chalk outline and STILL they aren't "say that it is for certain" that a crime has been commited!

Ahem, I'm having white silk gloves with pink embroidered "HB's" done up on them to leave at the scene of foreclosures and short sales as we speak.

Boy, goober, you sure like that term! :-)

@DinOR,

:lol: --it was Professor Plum in the library.

I’m still working on a macro “hedge” model for CME Housing Futures. Check by cap20 sometime next week (hopefully) when I have something we can kick around.

It is going to be interesting. :)

If it is implemented in time perhaps the cascade failure can be avoided.

IMO America still has a lot of karma, luck, and fortune. It will be ugly but we will survive.

(It is too early to tell whether the Iraq wars will harm America's Karma. Let's pray for peace.)

“Ok last year we said next year prices will come down (Mid 06) now we say by next year. How long can we keep pushing the dates? ”

I have become LESS bearish on Bay Area housing since last year.

One reason is that rent level is significantly higher in some desirable places. This will soften the eventual mean reversion of rent-price relationship.

However, there will still be a lot of pain. I think anything under 500K - 600K is still very dangerous.

HARM,

I just had to admire George's calm reserve. Whenever I see a post that breathlessly exclaims that for all of the "hub bub" prices are still escalating in his/her neck of the woods I just want to go off! Now that the housing starts are off what, 7.4% and back to the pre-insanity of 2005 levels are we going to have to ward off yet another offensive on "how 2004 was still a pretty good year?"

Thanks, George.

God I love numbers.

Peter P,

I don't get nearly as technical as yourself and Randy H, but isn't it just possible that rents in some areas have firmed due to the sudden realization that the outrageous upside is no longer there? I mean, if I'm paying 9 or 10% for margin money but my leveraged position is appreciating at 18 or 20% then who cares. As my appreciation slows to or below my margin expense then I have to re-think my position, no?

WW2,

Yes, it's true that electing officials who can bring home the pork because they belong to the dominant party is a good economic move for red states, but consider the middle-income 30-something who votes to 1) reduce his own taxes by 2% 2) reduce the upper income earners by 4% 3) increase the national debt by X-trillions.

There are two likely (one possible) outcomes that most of us on this board fear:

A) massive dollar depreciation (a future tax in disguise)
B) Future tax increases when the 30-something is in his prime earning years
C) (unlikely) Fed spending is cut back to Military and Debt service (2/3rd currently). This implies killing Social Security (1/3).

Possible strategies: You can either save now, praying A) doesn't happen ("hoping" B happens) or else spend-spend-spend and go into debt up the wazu and "hope" that A happens and praying that B doesn't happen. The latter strategy appears to be quite popular these days.

If you're rich (big tax savings now) or old (no risk from future tax increases as your income will drop; no fears of C happening - in your SS-lifetime, that is...), the tax cuts are great. Most of the nation's millionaires are in blue states, so aside from Florida oldies, red state voters are screwing themselves along with the middle class.

Frify,
Perhaps on paper what you're saying is absolutly correct. Perhaps there are future implications unforseen in " red states", but from simply looking at what's on the table now, Most of the "blue states" are already screwed. Big time in more ways than one, from crappy public education, high taxes, crippling business taxes, outdated protective laws that protect older homeowners, high home prices,low wages in relation to cost of living, and extremly high population densities. All the progressiveness in the world won't save these areas either. Perhaps they will be wonderul places for the rich, but as for middle income americans, these areas are toast.
I think the view that " blue states" are sucking dry money out of the pockets of the blue sections is oversimplified. The fact of the matter is that more real economic growth is occuring in these newly developed areas while RE has taken over the Blue zones. The actuality is that places like CA, and NY are bigger threats to the national economy than anywhere else. If they fall, then we all fall because they still have signifigant influence. A shifting of commerce from these regions will be the best thing for the country for the long term, that is until populations in the newer areas rises to the level of California's, which could be decades from now.
A simple observation of mine is the distinct lack of anything close to a blog devoted towards overpriced housing in any of the aforementioned "red" areas, except of course florida, which is a freak simply because of the intense NE based retirement communities.