« First « Previous Comments 145 - 160 of 160 Search these comments
I said:
I think Randy H. is dead on! The wealthy look out for themselves and other “haves†no matter which way the lean politically.
then FAB said:
“The Wealthy†may “look out for themselves†but they can not control the economy. The “wealthy†did not do very well trying to stop the price of S. Cal Real Estate from dropping in the 90’s (lots of “wealthy†people lost millions) or stop the huge drop in tech stock prices a few years back (I have some “wealthy†Borrowers who lost tens of millions from 2000 to 2001).
now I reply:
a) Wealth is relative, not absolute.
b) Just because the "wealthy" lost in absolute terms during the 90s real-estate downturn, does not mean they were no longer wealthy, comparatively.
c) In fact, the massive acceleration in wealth concentration with the top 1% occurred at almost that exact moment. These may just be interesting correlations, but many economists believe it was the early 90s recession that widened the gap between the rich and the not-rich.
Conclusion: just because FAB knew some rich people who lost $10s of millions, the odds are overwhelming that not only were they still "rich" compared to every else afterwards, but they were even richer, comparatively.
FAB,
Yeah, how is it that a $1,088 payment becomes $1,660 again? SoCalMortguy and I are definitely on the same wavelength. Maybe I should just say the same things that catch his eye are typically among the first things I would notice too.
"New Spanish Tiled Roofs". WTF?
Oh! I get it, as opposed to the "old" roof meaning this are soon to be repartments?
Randy H Says:
> a) Wealth is relative, not absolute.
> b) Just because the “wealthy†lost in absolute
> terms during the 90s real-estate downturn, does
> not mean they were no longer wealthy, comparatively.
> c) In fact, the massive acceleration in wealth
> concentration with the top 1% occurred at almost
> that exact moment. These may just be interesting
> correlations, but many economists believe it was the
> early 90s recession that widened the gap between
> the rich and the not-rich.
I agree with all of this except that "the early 90s recession that widened the gap between the rich and the not-rich." since over time every country throughout history had had a wide gap between the rich and not-rich that just kept getting wider until there was some kind of revolt (it got wider during the recession, but the recession did not "make it wider", just like the planet is warmer, but the guys driving around in Hummers paid for with HELOCs over the past few years did not "make it warmer"). The US will be no different and the gap between rich and not-rich will just keep getting wider until there is some kind of revolt (this will hopefully not happen until I am dead). The point I was trying to make is that the "wealthy may look out for themselves" but they can not change macro economic forces and just like Tom Perkins (who just built a cool new boat for ~$150 Million) could not save his wealthy friends who owned tech stocks in 2002 Gordon Getty will not be able to help his neighbors who own $20 Million + for Pac Heights homes.
“There is not too much sex on TV; just a lack of scenes where the girl says noâ€
There is now too much sex on TV.
I agree with all of this except that “the early 90s recession that widened the gap between the rich and the not-rich.†since over time every country throughout history had had a wide gap between the rich and not-rich that just kept getting wider until there was some kind of revolt (it got wider during the recession, but the recession did not “make it widerâ€, just like the planet is warmer, but the guys driving around in Hummers paid for with HELOCs over the past few years did not “make it warmerâ€).
This process is not magical, somehow preordained by the mystic ether. It is a macroeconomic process, likely constrained and guided by sociological and circumstantial factors. Recessions indeed are one cause of this phenomenon. Another, much slower, cause is disproportionate economic growth. But loss factors have a bigger effect on the system than gain factors.
I didn't know that was controversial, or that anyone disputed it. I admit I was wrong.
And what does global warming have to do with it? The analogy is a non sequitur. Everyone knows the reduction of global piracy has caused global warming.
AustinGal,
I'm following your comments for a couple of reasons.....I, too, am watching the Austin/San Antonio market to see if it's the right place in which to purchase. Also, you seem to follow the same sites I do....
Here's one that confirms the MA situation and is a pretext of things to come:
http://business.bostonherald.com/realestateNews/view.bg?articleid=154892
Add to the mix FOUR cities in TX are in the top ten for increased foreclosures, it's begining to sound like the same song is being played across the nation. This is a GREAT time to be on the sidelines, flush w/cash. I'm going to sqeeze....and sqeeze.....and sqeeze this market for everything it's worth. This type of opportunity comes along but once in a person's life....holding all the cards in a real estate deal.
My personal favorite tactic is to decide on two or three houses and then submit a "Multiple Buyer's Offer" on all of them at the same time. If anyone is interested in the details....let me know....I'll be happy to share. Now, know this....you won't be getting any Christmas cards from the sellers but you will dictate the terms, especially PRICE.
Great Site....love the info and comments!
If this isn't a sure sign of the times, I don't know what is:
http://www.sellyourpreconstruction.com/
Developers are going directly to the public to sell pre-construction sites. The last time I peeked, they would NEVER deal with the "unwashed masses" and only work with the "high class" professional brokers.
A caption from the home page reads....."Finally....Buyers meet sellers in the booming Real Estate market."
Question: If it's a booming real estate market, would they need such a site?
Dunno....maybe I'm just too stupid to figure out this here real estate thing. I'd better play it safe and go to a mortgage broker or real estate agent and trust them to tell me what I should do
Yep, here's the answer to the current market situation.
"This isn't a soft landing, it's harder than a soft landing," Toll told Reuters in an interview. But he denied the market was headed for a more dramatic decline in prices as some observers fear. "We are not crashing," he said.
He argued that demand for housing and consumer confidence in general have been hurt by concerns about terrorism, the war in Iraq and the response of the U.S. government to Hurricane Katrina.
Robert Toll, chairman and chief executive of Toll Brothers
Source: Reuters
Now that he's shared his expertise, it's clear as a bell. Last year when sales were soaring and there was no end in sight, terroism and the war had no effect. I know everyone across the country is in a state of complete panic over the Fed's response to Katrina......GIVE ME A BREAK!
Then, further in the interview he says:
"Next year, the company expects to build between 7,000 and 8,000 homes at an average price of $635,000 to $645,000. That's down from this year's expected production of 8,600 to 8,900 homes at an average price of $685,000 to $690,000."
Now, the average price will go down; but consider this:
Hard costs for land cannot be discounted, so where will they adjust their costs to maintain profit margins? Does materials and labor come to mind? If so, people will be getting a house with lower quality materials; put together with cheaper labor.....sound like a quality issue to you?
With so many new homes with SERIOUS structural defects, and rising, will this add to the problem? I don't think I'll be buying a Toll House....cookie maybe; but not my home.
Still no ‘pop’ here in the Westside of Los Angeles. Santa Monica, Brentwood, the Palisades are all are just humming along. Homes are sitting longer. Some by quite a lot.
Faggot, fuck off back to Craigslist. Is Sherman Oaks still Prime?
brahma,
Nothing wrong with vegetarianism. The problem is when they start proslytizing, especially when they proslyetize with misleading information. Also, they're a pain in social gatherings.
Try some vegetarian Indian cuisine, the vast array of vegetarian dishes possible will show how evolutionally deprived this country is when it comes to vegetarian cooking.
I have tried many different type of veggie cuisines and I do like some. Truffles, for example, are truly wonderful.
I actually like veggies a lot (esp. arugula, broccoli rabe, chards, exotic mushrooms) but I like to cook them with chicken broth and/or bacon drippings.
However, there is no point restricting myself to just vegetables when there are so much out there.
Sorry, I do believe that the detiny of a farm animal is to be harvested. BTW, how do you know that you are not being cruel to vegetables when you harvest them?
Often meat itself is tasteless but the seasonings provide the taste, aroma and flavor.
Try kobe beef and toro. They have more flavor than seasonings.
I heard somewhere that many vegetarians have converted after trying kobe beef.
I guess you will never grasp the hidden truth of animal cruelty until you yourself truly are victimised in a very bad way by lets say..the system…with very little possibility for redemption or recourse for no fault of yours.
I am sorry but animal cruelty really does not bother me. Do you know how many humans are suffering as we speak? I do not have time or energy to worry about food being mistreated.
No fault? How can you be sure?
« First « Previous Comments 145 - 160 of 160 Search these comments
I now agree with the housing bulls. There is no housing bubble.
The bubble is no longer "is", it is now "was".
Yes, I think it's time to officially declare that there is no longer a housing bubble in USA. There was one, whose size, implications and aftermath are the only remaining questions. The MSM has jumped on the bandwagon. The bulls (NAR, CAR and their mouthpieces) have no clue as to how to describe the situation.
The depth and speed of the unwinding process seems to have surprised everyone. Take a look at the DQ charts for Bay Area.
http://www.dqnews.com/ZIPSJMN.shtm
San Mateo and Santa Cruz have -ve YOY gains for the median. Santa Clara is holding to a 0.1% gain. The price per SQFT is also rapidly trending downwards. Sales have fallen over the cliff. No matter how faulty and lagging these indicators are, they will make headlines. I was hoping to see that (-ve YOY median in Santa Clara county) happen by the end of this year. Seems like we are way ahead of schedule.
Maybe we all wish this to get over quickly, but we know it won't. Still, do you think it's happening faster than you had expected ? Or slower ? Or about the same ?
- StuckInBA
#housing