- This topic has 290 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
barnaby33.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM #597303August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM #596256
briansd1
Guest[quote=deadzone] The only people who are really negativly affected are those who purchased homes between say 2002/2003 and today. Most everybody else should have positive equity and/or are renters so don’t have any mortgage debt. In fact, the lower home prices iun the long run will encourage legitimate new home ownership (not the bogus home ownership society of the bubble). So I see that as a net gain in the long term.
The only people who are against this are those who bought during the bubble. But what % of the population is really in this boat? Let’s just get this correction over with so we can move on with our lives and try to rebuild a legitimate (although less prosperous) economy.[/quote]
Lots of people tapped into equity to fuel the “fake” economy you were talking about.
If you look at Las Vegas and Arizona where something like 70% of homeowners are underwater, then you realize the severity of the situation.
Quitting cold turkey is hard. The spa treatment is a lot more pleasant, especially if you can charge it on the credit card.
August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM #596349Guest[quote=deadzone] The only people who are really negativly affected are those who purchased homes between say 2002/2003 and today. Most everybody else should have positive equity and/or are renters so don’t have any mortgage debt. In fact, the lower home prices iun the long run will encourage legitimate new home ownership (not the bogus home ownership society of the bubble). So I see that as a net gain in the long term.
The only people who are against this are those who bought during the bubble. But what % of the population is really in this boat? Let’s just get this correction over with so we can move on with our lives and try to rebuild a legitimate (although less prosperous) economy.[/quote]
Lots of people tapped into equity to fuel the “fake” economy you were talking about.
If you look at Las Vegas and Arizona where something like 70% of homeowners are underwater, then you realize the severity of the situation.
Quitting cold turkey is hard. The spa treatment is a lot more pleasant, especially if you can charge it on the credit card.
August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM #596888Guest[quote=deadzone] The only people who are really negativly affected are those who purchased homes between say 2002/2003 and today. Most everybody else should have positive equity and/or are renters so don’t have any mortgage debt. In fact, the lower home prices iun the long run will encourage legitimate new home ownership (not the bogus home ownership society of the bubble). So I see that as a net gain in the long term.
The only people who are against this are those who bought during the bubble. But what % of the population is really in this boat? Let’s just get this correction over with so we can move on with our lives and try to rebuild a legitimate (although less prosperous) economy.[/quote]
Lots of people tapped into equity to fuel the “fake” economy you were talking about.
If you look at Las Vegas and Arizona where something like 70% of homeowners are underwater, then you realize the severity of the situation.
Quitting cold turkey is hard. The spa treatment is a lot more pleasant, especially if you can charge it on the credit card.
August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM #596997Guest[quote=deadzone] The only people who are really negativly affected are those who purchased homes between say 2002/2003 and today. Most everybody else should have positive equity and/or are renters so don’t have any mortgage debt. In fact, the lower home prices iun the long run will encourage legitimate new home ownership (not the bogus home ownership society of the bubble). So I see that as a net gain in the long term.
The only people who are against this are those who bought during the bubble. But what % of the population is really in this boat? Let’s just get this correction over with so we can move on with our lives and try to rebuild a legitimate (although less prosperous) economy.[/quote]
Lots of people tapped into equity to fuel the “fake” economy you were talking about.
If you look at Las Vegas and Arizona where something like 70% of homeowners are underwater, then you realize the severity of the situation.
Quitting cold turkey is hard. The spa treatment is a lot more pleasant, especially if you can charge it on the credit card.
August 25, 2010 at 2:38 PM #597314Guest[quote=deadzone] The only people who are really negativly affected are those who purchased homes between say 2002/2003 and today. Most everybody else should have positive equity and/or are renters so don’t have any mortgage debt. In fact, the lower home prices iun the long run will encourage legitimate new home ownership (not the bogus home ownership society of the bubble). So I see that as a net gain in the long term.
The only people who are against this are those who bought during the bubble. But what % of the population is really in this boat? Let’s just get this correction over with so we can move on with our lives and try to rebuild a legitimate (although less prosperous) economy.[/quote]
Lots of people tapped into equity to fuel the “fake” economy you were talking about.
If you look at Las Vegas and Arizona where something like 70% of homeowners are underwater, then you realize the severity of the situation.
Quitting cold turkey is hard. The spa treatment is a lot more pleasant, especially if you can charge it on the credit card.
August 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM #596271Anonymous
GuestI don’t belive that 70% of AZ homeowners are underwater, you’ll have to show some proof of that one. Las Vegas I’ll believe. Las Vegas is the extreme because more than any other place they grew disproportionally during the 2000s due to the bogus economy.
But so what? If the U.S economy is dependent on Vegas then we are even more F’d than I thought. As far as I’m concerned Vegas could blow up and and the world would be better off. Furthermore much of the job growth during the Vegas boom went to hiring illegal immigrants. So is it a bad thing that there are not so many jobs in places like Vegas for illegal workers? Yeah I know that is an entirely different debate..
August 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM #596364GuestI don’t belive that 70% of AZ homeowners are underwater, you’ll have to show some proof of that one. Las Vegas I’ll believe. Las Vegas is the extreme because more than any other place they grew disproportionally during the 2000s due to the bogus economy.
But so what? If the U.S economy is dependent on Vegas then we are even more F’d than I thought. As far as I’m concerned Vegas could blow up and and the world would be better off. Furthermore much of the job growth during the Vegas boom went to hiring illegal immigrants. So is it a bad thing that there are not so many jobs in places like Vegas for illegal workers? Yeah I know that is an entirely different debate..
August 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM #596903GuestI don’t belive that 70% of AZ homeowners are underwater, you’ll have to show some proof of that one. Las Vegas I’ll believe. Las Vegas is the extreme because more than any other place they grew disproportionally during the 2000s due to the bogus economy.
But so what? If the U.S economy is dependent on Vegas then we are even more F’d than I thought. As far as I’m concerned Vegas could blow up and and the world would be better off. Furthermore much of the job growth during the Vegas boom went to hiring illegal immigrants. So is it a bad thing that there are not so many jobs in places like Vegas for illegal workers? Yeah I know that is an entirely different debate..
August 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM #597012GuestI don’t belive that 70% of AZ homeowners are underwater, you’ll have to show some proof of that one. Las Vegas I’ll believe. Las Vegas is the extreme because more than any other place they grew disproportionally during the 2000s due to the bogus economy.
But so what? If the U.S economy is dependent on Vegas then we are even more F’d than I thought. As far as I’m concerned Vegas could blow up and and the world would be better off. Furthermore much of the job growth during the Vegas boom went to hiring illegal immigrants. So is it a bad thing that there are not so many jobs in places like Vegas for illegal workers? Yeah I know that is an entirely different debate..
August 25, 2010 at 2:57 PM #597329GuestI don’t belive that 70% of AZ homeowners are underwater, you’ll have to show some proof of that one. Las Vegas I’ll believe. Las Vegas is the extreme because more than any other place they grew disproportionally during the 2000s due to the bogus economy.
But so what? If the U.S economy is dependent on Vegas then we are even more F’d than I thought. As far as I’m concerned Vegas could blow up and and the world would be better off. Furthermore much of the job growth during the Vegas boom went to hiring illegal immigrants. So is it a bad thing that there are not so many jobs in places like Vegas for illegal workers? Yeah I know that is an entirely different debate..
August 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM #596281Guestsdr, I understand your sarcasm, it does get tiring hearing the same arguments over and over (and I agree that not all of these have manifested themselves on the street, yet). However, just because they are tired arguments doesn’t make them less true and certainly won’t make them go away.
Us “perma-bears”, or realists as we would prefer to be called, are just as frustrated with the government and ignorant public for continuing to kick the can down the road risking the prosperity of future generations.
A predition of a “stagnant” economy is quite optimistic given the government is taking no steps to remedy the situation of an economy entirely fueled by credit.
August 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM #596374Guestsdr, I understand your sarcasm, it does get tiring hearing the same arguments over and over (and I agree that not all of these have manifested themselves on the street, yet). However, just because they are tired arguments doesn’t make them less true and certainly won’t make them go away.
Us “perma-bears”, or realists as we would prefer to be called, are just as frustrated with the government and ignorant public for continuing to kick the can down the road risking the prosperity of future generations.
A predition of a “stagnant” economy is quite optimistic given the government is taking no steps to remedy the situation of an economy entirely fueled by credit.
August 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM #596913Guestsdr, I understand your sarcasm, it does get tiring hearing the same arguments over and over (and I agree that not all of these have manifested themselves on the street, yet). However, just because they are tired arguments doesn’t make them less true and certainly won’t make them go away.
Us “perma-bears”, or realists as we would prefer to be called, are just as frustrated with the government and ignorant public for continuing to kick the can down the road risking the prosperity of future generations.
A predition of a “stagnant” economy is quite optimistic given the government is taking no steps to remedy the situation of an economy entirely fueled by credit.
August 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM #597022Guestsdr, I understand your sarcasm, it does get tiring hearing the same arguments over and over (and I agree that not all of these have manifested themselves on the street, yet). However, just because they are tired arguments doesn’t make them less true and certainly won’t make them go away.
Us “perma-bears”, or realists as we would prefer to be called, are just as frustrated with the government and ignorant public for continuing to kick the can down the road risking the prosperity of future generations.
A predition of a “stagnant” economy is quite optimistic given the government is taking no steps to remedy the situation of an economy entirely fueled by credit.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.