- This topic has 95 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 6 months ago by UCGal.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 26, 2009 at 12:14 PM #15758May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM #405742carlsbadworkerParticipant
I find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM #406288carlsbadworkerParticipantI find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM #406227carlsbadworkerParticipantI find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM #405987carlsbadworkerParticipantI find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.May 26, 2009 at 12:46 PM #406436carlsbadworkerParticipantI find people on this board routinely under-estimate the power of delaying the inventory hitting the market. So what if it fails to stop defaults? The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now. If they can spread the “shadow inventory” into many many years, the effect of this inventory on the housing price (which we care most) is going to be rather negligible.
In the end, procrastination is like masturbation. It looks like you’re just screwing yourself, but it also has many hidden benefits that people just don’t advertise about it.May 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM #405752ArrayaParticipantThe normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.
May 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM #406237ArrayaParticipantThe normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.
May 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM #406299ArrayaParticipantThe normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.
May 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM #405997ArrayaParticipantThe normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.
May 26, 2009 at 12:54 PM #406446ArrayaParticipantThe normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem.
May 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM #406257daveljParticipant[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]
GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.
May 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM #406319daveljParticipant[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]
GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.
May 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM #406466daveljParticipant[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]
GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.
May 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM #406017daveljParticipant[quote=Arraya]The normal population growth probably requires 1.2-1.3M new houses every year, and the builders are only building 500K per year right now.
You need to find some economic growth for you population growth or it does not mean anything except additional burden on a society. That is the crux of the problem. [/quote]
GDP = C + I + G + (X-Imp)
The percentage change in GDP will reflect the changes in the above inputs. The percentage change in GDP over the long term will ALSO equal Population Growth + Productivity Growth. This relationship is axiomatic.So, you see, GDP growth is partly a function of population growth, not vice versa. I think (re: hope) what you’re trying to say is that we need growth in productivity and innovation to create jobs that will take up the current slack in the job market. Otherwise, you’re confused on how the pieces fit together.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.