Kramer talks about CA

[Anonymous]

“- If the first two don’t work, I would look for a spike in inflation….they have a built-in excuse with rising energy costs. If paychecks increase, house values may stop falling and the number of owners underwater can be minimized. The big losers if this does indeed happen: renters and those living on fixed incomes.”

I’d hate to see the government step in. It’s gonna hurt the little people like me, those of us who are waiting around for the market to correct itself so we can own property at realistic prices. Morally, a government bailout is just plain wrong. Whoever bought in the housing frenzy knew what they were doing; they didn’t have to be greedy. Even my 12-year-old has the common sense to know prices cannot rise forever. People rolled the dice and they lost, why should I have to pay for their mistake?

[kev374]

The government serves the people and the majority of people in this country own homes or want to buy homes. They do not want to see a housing meltdown. Right or wrong the government will intervene. Anyone who didnt see this coming is a bit naive.

How is rewarding risky irresponsible behavior serving the people? You say the government wants to act in the interest of people who wants to buy homes, how is intervening and not letting markets correct themselves serving those who cannot afford to buy without stretching themselves and getting into risky propositions?

[kev374]

The government serves the people and the majority of people in this country own homes or want to buy homes. They do not want to see a housing meltdown. Right or wrong the government will intervene. Anyone who didnt see this coming is a bit naive.

How is rewarding risky irresponsible behavior serving the people? You say the government wants to act in the interest of people who wants to buy homes, how is intervening and not letting markets correct themselves serving those who cannot afford to buy without stretching themselves and getting into risky propositions?

[kev374]

The government serves the people and the majority of people in this country own homes or want to buy homes. They do not want to see a housing meltdown. Right or wrong the government will intervene. Anyone who didnt see this coming is a bit naive.

How is rewarding risky irresponsible behavior serving the people? You say the government wants to act in the interest of people who wants to buy homes, how is intervening and not letting markets correct themselves serving those who cannot afford to buy without stretching themselves and getting into risky propositions?

[kev374]

The government serves the people and the majority of people in this country own homes or want to buy homes. They do not want to see a housing meltdown. Right or wrong the government will intervene. Anyone who didnt see this coming is a bit naive.

How is rewarding risky irresponsible behavior serving the people? You say the government wants to act in the interest of people who wants to buy homes, how is intervening and not letting markets correct themselves serving those who cannot afford to buy without stretching themselves and getting into risky propositions?

[kev374]

The government serves the people and the majority of people in this country own homes or want to buy homes. They do not want to see a housing meltdown. Right or wrong the government will intervene. Anyone who didnt see this coming is a bit naive.

How is rewarding risky irresponsible behavior serving the people? You say the government wants to act in the interest of people who wants to buy homes, how is intervening and not letting markets correct themselves serving those who cannot afford to buy without stretching themselves and getting into risky propositions?

[NotCranky]

Marion,
Houses in Temecula and Murrieta are going to reach realistic prices for where they are situated in Southern CA, That is a given. Whether that is affordable by individual standards is another question. Bailouts won’t keep prices artificially high forever. They will just change the course to market based affordability or perhaps as others have said, won’t do anything.

[NotCranky]

Marion,
Houses in Temecula and Murrieta are going to reach realistic prices for where they are situated in Southern CA, That is a given. Whether that is affordable by individual standards is another question. Bailouts won’t keep prices artificially high forever. They will just change the course to market based affordability or perhaps as others have said, won’t do anything.

[NotCranky]

Marion,
Houses in Temecula and Murrieta are going to reach realistic prices for where they are situated in Southern CA, That is a given. Whether that is affordable by individual standards is another question. Bailouts won’t keep prices artificially high forever. They will just change the course to market based affordability or perhaps as others have said, won’t do anything.

[NotCranky]

Marion,
Houses in Temecula and Murrieta are going to reach realistic prices for where they are situated in Southern CA, That is a given. Whether that is affordable by individual standards is another question. Bailouts won’t keep prices artificially high forever. They will just change the course to market based affordability or perhaps as others have said, won’t do anything.

[NotCranky]

Marion,
Houses in Temecula and Murrieta are going to reach realistic prices for where they are situated in Southern CA, That is a given. Whether that is affordable by individual standards is another question. Bailouts won’t keep prices artificially high forever. They will just change the course to market based affordability or perhaps as others have said, won’t do anything.

[jeeman]

Rustico,

I definitely believe that Greenspan’s intent was for consumer spending to pick up the slack of the drop in corporate spending after the dotcom bust. He even mentioned that he believed the ATM effect of rising house prices should prevent a major recession or a depression following the excesses of the ’90s.

However, I do believe that he saw something in 2004-2005 and was quiet, or was totally oblivious to all the fraud going on during that time. Surprising, yes, but eventually, when he did see it, he didn’t say anything, but raised rates quiety.

Imagine if he had said something? How would the markets have reacted back then? Who knows? Maybe they would have reacted the same as they are now.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

Rustico,

I definitely believe that Greenspan’s intent was for consumer spending to pick up the slack of the drop in corporate spending after the dotcom bust. He even mentioned that he believed the ATM effect of rising house prices should prevent a major recession or a depression following the excesses of the ’90s.

However, I do believe that he saw something in 2004-2005 and was quiet, or was totally oblivious to all the fraud going on during that time. Surprising, yes, but eventually, when he did see it, he didn’t say anything, but raised rates quiety.

Imagine if he had said something? How would the markets have reacted back then? Who knows? Maybe they would have reacted the same as they are now.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

Rustico,

I definitely believe that Greenspan’s intent was for consumer spending to pick up the slack of the drop in corporate spending after the dotcom bust. He even mentioned that he believed the ATM effect of rising house prices should prevent a major recession or a depression following the excesses of the ’90s.

However, I do believe that he saw something in 2004-2005 and was quiet, or was totally oblivious to all the fraud going on during that time. Surprising, yes, but eventually, when he did see it, he didn’t say anything, but raised rates quiety.

Imagine if he had said something? How would the markets have reacted back then? Who knows? Maybe they would have reacted the same as they are now.

Jeeman

[jeeman]

Rustico,

I definitely believe that Greenspan’s intent was for consumer spending to pick up the slack of the drop in corporate spending after the dotcom bust. He even mentioned that he believed the ATM effect of rising house prices should prevent a major recession or a depression following the excesses of the ’90s.

However, I do believe that he saw something in 2004-2005 and was quiet, or was totally oblivious to all the fraud going on during that time. Surprising, yes, but eventually, when he did see it, he didn’t say anything, but raised rates quiety.

Imagine if he had said something? How would the markets have reacted back then? Who knows? Maybe they would have reacted the same as they are now.

Jeeman

[Author]

Posts