patrick.net

Tude says

I don’t think we will hit bottom until the incentives are gone. Too much government involvement in the way of tax credits and FHA BS loans for us to find a true bottom. They want you to think this is bottom and buy, but I refuse to until the monkey business with housing stops.

I agree with Tude on this one. Prices in the zips I'm watching have gone up only since the extension of the $8k tax credit/gift/loan or whatever the h*ll they call it.

My understanding is that they want to increase the amount to $15k or even $30k. Not sure, however I am viewing this as catering to the homeowner vote.

Too much manipulation for me.

~Misstrial

The more i read these threads the more i believe that our leaders are a bunch of idiots. Someone said in a earlier thread we have a 2 party system:

The Government vs The People

...and they were right.

The People have forgotten that they are (were) The Government. Now the governors have enslaved the governed in the name of "sell the country to the highest bidder" with the latter's willing consent. It's as simple as that.

Stop re-electing thieves to Congress and clean house, get educated, follow your government's business, read real books about government and politics, stop watching controlled media and corporate television (PBS is brain food), get informed, exercise your right to redress grievances (it's in the Bill of Rights until they steal that one), get off the couch, yell and scream, write letters to the editor, write to your Congress members about how you feel on major issues and watch how they vote (make them accountable) and above all, BE A THINKER, NOT A PASSIVE SHEEP. Untie yourself from the bonds of corporate America. Buy green stuff, buy at the farmers market, walk whenever you can. Don't buy Chinese crap, buy American. You will pay more but get lasting quality. Question everything you believe, and ask yourself why you believe it. Pay attention, use your senses. THINK and ACT. Stop being a pacifist, stop listening to the pundits and the raving lunatics on both sides. Become a political agnostic. Don't think like the crowd. Is that enough?

thunderlips11 says

“Probably it has gotten to the point that it has because BIG Business would rather we paid for the Benefits.”
That’s right wish. The whole stuff about the fence is nonsense, just a handout to the M.I.C.. The way to stop illegals is to RICO act Agribusinesses, Meatpackers, Landscapers for conspiracy to violate employment laws. Also, discrimination lawsuits by native born Americans of all races for ethic preferences. Mix together a few executives of Tyson Chicken with a few local contractors here and there, make them do the perp walk, and watch the redistribution of jobs to the legally employable. Illegals will then remove themselves without deportation. Also, require naturalization papers or birth certificates to receive benefits.
Businesses that use unskilled labor love illegals because they’re easily intimidated, don’t stand up for themselves, will work for peanuts, and if they get hurt, the taxpayer pays the tab for the hospital or disability or welfare. It’s a great illustration of externalities.
And of course, it depresses wage scales for our own unskilled people, making it harder for them to support or improve themselves.

excellant post

1 year ago my wife & I almost bought a house here on the peninsula. We thought it was a good deal on a bank owned property. We had a 5.1% rate 30 year conventional loan, etc. etc. Good K-5 schools for our kids, etc. etc.

One of the first things that spooked me was when our realtor told us that he had a interest only loan on a $1M house in San Francisco that was about to re-set to a double digit interest rate, and he was barely getting by on the monthly payment as it was. When asked he was "not too worried about it" when I asked what he planned to do about it, I knew then I couldn't trust a frigging word that came out of his mouth when it came to representing our interests as buyers. a) he was an idiot b) he'll do or say anything to get the sales commission from me.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the tax credit for buying a house will become permanent. I do not see how they could believe they have any other choice to help keep housing prices artificially inflated. They have already told me as much and Mr. Frank already told the whole world that making home ownership acquirable was America’s policy. I am paraphrasing him as I disagree with is you use of the term affordable.

I have always heard that during its inception Social Security was suppose to a temporary solution and was never meant or originally designed to be a long-term or permanent solution. I have never verified this, but given how Social Security is working it clearly was never designed to be enduring. This is my basis for believing generations from now no one will even have a concept of the fact that the housing tax credit originally was a temporary solution. It will be taken for granted that it was always intended to be permanent and they will start complaining about is failure when the cracks are too wide to be ignored.

Why are we trying save Social Security if it was only ever meant to be temporary? It’s a rhetorical question. Accept it the housing tax credit and all its problems are permanent.

The artifical bottom is permanent policy.

it's a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.

Now it's slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.

I'm thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with "no bottom in sight"

toothfairy says

it’s a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.
Now it’s slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.
I’m thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with “no bottom in sight”

This time last year may have been the best time to buy in Oakland.

wish i was lucky says

So my next question is - who is/was supposed to live in all these monster homes that were built? What was the master plan??

The mcMansions of today will become the multigenerational housing of tommorrow, as nature intended. When you really think about it, McMansions are perfectly suited for this task.

toothfairy says

it’s a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.
Now it’s slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.
I’m thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with “no bottom in sight”

Most of these were probably bought by cash only investors. What happens when no one buys the flip or when they can't be rented? Exactly. I hear jobs in that target demographic are soaring (not).

Dead cat bounce IMO.

pkowen says

This time last year may have been the best time to buy in Oakland.

At least until next year. I wonder how much of the Oakland surge pushing $100k homes to $150k was caused by fraudulant use of the $8k tax incentive. When that expires, will we see a fall?

Or is it a new high demand for lower priced rental property, fueled by all those step down former homeowners?

tarkin says

I have always heard that during its inception Social Security was suppose to a temporary solution and was never meant or originally designed to be a long-term or permanent solution.

yeah, well you've always heard wrong. From 1937:

"Example: A factory superintendent 40 years old makes $3,000 per year; his annual tax to begin with will be $30 (1% of $3,000); the factory management must match his $30 with another $30 and the $60 will be turned into the Treasury to build up the Old-Age Pension Fund; at 65 the factory superintendent may retire to draw a maximum of $62.50 each month from the Government. Though the Federal Social Security Board in Washington has been working quietly for months with plans to inaugurate this vast pension scheme in 1937, few wage earners were aware until last week of the practical details of the plan as it affected their pocketbooks. "

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756827,00.html#ixzz0b0TSgNKy

to see the Republican scare-mongering that was ever-present even back then.

"I have never verified this, but given how Social Security is working it clearly was never designed to be enduring."

SS is working fine now. Taking more than $150B/yr than it is paying out, and has been for decades since the Greenspan Commission raised FICA contributions in the mid-80s. As a retirement program, it is sitting on $2T on the safest savings imaginable -- US bonds. As an enforced savings program, it is a howling success, though it is something of an welfare program as lower-income pensioners will take out more than they contribute.

To fix Social Security permanently, we'll have to increase its income transfer by jacking up taxes on either high earners, more fairly by increasing taxes on everyone, or enacting means-testing on benefits, or capping payouts to keep the fund in balance once it begins drawing down the money the General Fund owes it.

But I agree that the $8000 credit just might become permanent. It is difficult to find a "temporary" measure taken by the gummint that doesn't stick around somehow.

Troy says

But I agree that the $8000 credit just might become permanent. It is difficult to find a “temporary” measure taken by the gummint that doesn’t stick around somehow.

I somewhat agree on this too. What I am expecting is another extention of that $8000 credit after Apr. 2010. I'd rather prefer seeing those BS fees like loan origination fee and 6% realtor commision is being cut into half, rather than making $8000 credit permanent though.

Troy says

keep the fund in balance once it begins drawing down the money the General Fund owes it.

Ah the magic words and the crux of the problem. If the general budget has been billions in the red every year for the last 30 years, how will the general budget not only balance the books all of a sudden, but find enough money to pay back 30 years of stealing from social security? The 2T in bonds held by social security is simply an IOU from one branch of government to another. THERE IS NO MONEY. YOUR MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN STOLEN. The majority of it is now invested in tanks, planes, submarines, military bases all over the world, and the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

You would have to eliminate the entire federal government except for interest on the debt to actually make this work. Or convince foreign investors to kick in another 2T to help America live beyond her means. Or default on all Tbills except those owed to SS. Or devalue the currency by something like 95%. It's going to be a rocky road.

bob2356 says

THERE IS NO MONEY. YOUR MONEY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY HAS BEEN STOLEN

Nah, the Greenspan plan was to cut taxes on the upper class so they could invest it in better wealth-accruing enterprises than government.

There is plenty of money -- the super-wealthy have it. Table L.10 Assets and Liabilities of the Personal Sector of the Federal Flow of Funds report lays it out -- the private sector has $40T in assets against $20T in liabilities.

Right now 10% of the country controls 60-70% of the wealth. Cutting this back to 40-50% isn't going to be that big a deal, other than the great caterwauling we'll get from the super-wealthy's media and thinktank mouthpieces.

thomas.wong89 says

or manybe pissed away by Congress on social programs before 911 ?

Nope. Maybe not.

“THERE IS NO MONEY…”

One could argue that:

There never has been, and never will be.
or
There always has been, and always will be.

Social security funding is just a numbers game.

The reality is that people working now must produce the real goods and services consumed by people on Social Security now.

People working in the future must produce the real goods and services to be consumed by people on Social Security in the future.

Which pot of fiat currency is used to purchase those goods and services is a secondary factor, and an accounting construct.

If the nominal fund balance is insufficient, then we can just print more currency to buy the real goods and services needed. The real goods and services will be a real drain on workers no matter how we "fund" our Social Security system.

CrazyMan says

toothfairy says

it’s a bit local. I was shopping for a rental house in Oakland this time last year and there was plenty to choose from in the 100k range.

Now it’s slim pickings and anything halfway decent is in the 150-180k price range.

I’m thinking the best time to buy was back when prices were falling with “no bottom in sight”

Most of these were probably bought by cash only investors. What happens when no one buys the flip or when they can’t be rented? Exactly. I hear jobs in that target demographic are soaring (not).
Dead cat bounce IMO.

dead cat bounce huh? Let's hope so. The thing about paying all cash is that there's no pressure to rent it out. But the fact that these were halfway decent properties in Oakland the chances of it not being rented are pretty slim.
I could be wrong but somehow I dont think we'll be seeing those rock bottom prices again anytime soon.

thomas.wong89 says

bob2356 says

The majority of it is now invested in tanks, planes, submarines, military bases all over the world, and the deserts of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Are you saying SS was in the black before the year 2000 ? or manybe pissed away by Congress on social programs before 911 ?

SS and medicare are still in the black and still paying part of the deficit. Congress just writes an IOU to SS/medicare every year and spends the money. Over 60% of the budget (without adding in SS/Medicare as they are funded separately) is military (if everything was accounted for properly), so over 60% of the pissing away is military. Pop quiz, what percentage of the federal budget,, is "social programs". Hint, interest on the debt is half of what's left over after defense.

Back to the original point, the latest Case-Shiller Numbers (released today, from October, 2009) idicate that :

All in all, this report should be described as flat.” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor’s.

Case Shiller Index

Press Release