Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Bailout – What does it mean for real estate for us waiting?

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 141 total)
1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM #281882
    Huckleberry
    Participant

    [quote=SD Realtor]PR I think that there are 2 ways the empire can try to stop falling prices. The first would be to stem inventory. Effectively that means eating all of the distress balances and letting people stay in the distress homes at new valuations of those homes. The second would be to provide incentives to possible buyers. These incentives could take the form of tax credits, direct financing, or other subsidies.

    Does this will exist? Could it happen? Well I think it is absolutely possible. We passed the point of no return long long ago so those who think that it could not are just as much in denial as cheerleader realtors.

    I absolutely hope it will not happen but nothing surprises me anymore.
    [/quote]

    Yes, these are the two primary ways they may try to stop the decline, but there are WAY to many market forces working against them to be successful.

    Values will continue to decline no matter what they try…

    October 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM #281571
    patientrenter
    Participant

    Huckleberry,

    Why can’t govt intervention permanently change a major economic activity? If the govt imposes a high tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and stays with it for 30 years, why wouldn’t that lead to an entire economy based on shorter commuting distances, fewer trips, smaller cars, more fuel-efficient technology etc? (Think Europe, if you say that can’t happen.)

    I am not saying it’s good, I am just saying it’s conceivable.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM #281849
    patientrenter
    Participant

    Huckleberry,

    Why can’t govt intervention permanently change a major economic activity? If the govt imposes a high tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and stays with it for 30 years, why wouldn’t that lead to an entire economy based on shorter commuting distances, fewer trips, smaller cars, more fuel-efficient technology etc? (Think Europe, if you say that can’t happen.)

    I am not saying it’s good, I am just saying it’s conceivable.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM #281853
    patientrenter
    Participant

    Huckleberry,

    Why can’t govt intervention permanently change a major economic activity? If the govt imposes a high tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and stays with it for 30 years, why wouldn’t that lead to an entire economy based on shorter commuting distances, fewer trips, smaller cars, more fuel-efficient technology etc? (Think Europe, if you say that can’t happen.)

    I am not saying it’s good, I am just saying it’s conceivable.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM #281894
    patientrenter
    Participant

    Huckleberry,

    Why can’t govt intervention permanently change a major economic activity? If the govt imposes a high tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and stays with it for 30 years, why wouldn’t that lead to an entire economy based on shorter commuting distances, fewer trips, smaller cars, more fuel-efficient technology etc? (Think Europe, if you say that can’t happen.)

    I am not saying it’s good, I am just saying it’s conceivable.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM #281907
    patientrenter
    Participant

    Huckleberry,

    Why can’t govt intervention permanently change a major economic activity? If the govt imposes a high tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and stays with it for 30 years, why wouldn’t that lead to an entire economy based on shorter commuting distances, fewer trips, smaller cars, more fuel-efficient technology etc? (Think Europe, if you say that can’t happen.)

    I am not saying it’s good, I am just saying it’s conceivable.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM #281586
    TheBreeze
    Participant

    [quote=patientrenter]
    (Oh, and of course persistently high inflation would be the only practical way to achieve this.)[/quote]

    Paulson has already admitted to this. In a Congressional hearing a few months ago Paulson said there were two ways out of this: The U.S. could inflate its way out of this by bringing house prices up to the price of the mortgage on the house or the U.S. could crunch the mortgages down to the price of the house.

    It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM #281864
    TheBreeze
    Participant

    [quote=patientrenter]
    (Oh, and of course persistently high inflation would be the only practical way to achieve this.)[/quote]

    Paulson has already admitted to this. In a Congressional hearing a few months ago Paulson said there were two ways out of this: The U.S. could inflate its way out of this by bringing house prices up to the price of the mortgage on the house or the U.S. could crunch the mortgages down to the price of the house.

    It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM #281868
    TheBreeze
    Participant

    [quote=patientrenter]
    (Oh, and of course persistently high inflation would be the only practical way to achieve this.)[/quote]

    Paulson has already admitted to this. In a Congressional hearing a few months ago Paulson said there were two ways out of this: The U.S. could inflate its way out of this by bringing house prices up to the price of the mortgage on the house or the U.S. could crunch the mortgages down to the price of the house.

    It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM #281909
    TheBreeze
    Participant

    [quote=patientrenter]
    (Oh, and of course persistently high inflation would be the only practical way to achieve this.)[/quote]

    Paulson has already admitted to this. In a Congressional hearing a few months ago Paulson said there were two ways out of this: The U.S. could inflate its way out of this by bringing house prices up to the price of the mortgage on the house or the U.S. could crunch the mortgages down to the price of the house.

    It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.

    October 5, 2008 at 5:56 PM #281922
    TheBreeze
    Participant

    [quote=patientrenter]
    (Oh, and of course persistently high inflation would be the only practical way to achieve this.)[/quote]

    Paulson has already admitted to this. In a Congressional hearing a few months ago Paulson said there were two ways out of this: The U.S. could inflate its way out of this by bringing house prices up to the price of the mortgage on the house or the U.S. could crunch the mortgages down to the price of the house.

    It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.

    October 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM #281616
    patientrenter
    Participant

    TheBreeze wrote: “It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.”

    Yes. We should expect lots more where that $700 billion came from.

    October 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM #281895
    patientrenter
    Participant

    TheBreeze wrote: “It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.”

    Yes. We should expect lots more where that $700 billion came from.

    October 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM #281898
    patientrenter
    Participant

    TheBreeze wrote: “It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.”

    Yes. We should expect lots more where that $700 billion came from.

    October 5, 2008 at 7:31 PM #281939
    patientrenter
    Participant

    TheBreeze wrote: “It’s pretty clear they would like to choose the inflation route. However, I don’t think $700 billion is going to do it.”

    Yes. We should expect lots more where that $700 billion came from.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 141 total)
1 2 3 … 7 8 9 10
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.