New-home sales plunge 33% to record low in May

[Arraya]

[quote=SK in CV]The problem with that forecast is that solely relying on economic trends and ignoring demographic trends can lead to faulty conclusions.
.[/quote]

Actually , energy trends are more important than anything. For energy is the basis of all economic activity. Juxtapose energy trends with demographic and you get monumentally faulty conclusions. Which is where we are at today. Declining net energy, shifting demographics and growing population all mired in debt — debt that requires, at this point, epic growth to pay back — epic growth which is a physical impossibility.

Perpetual economic growth is just a psychotic fantasy

[img_assist|nid=13530|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=652|height=350]

We are in yellow

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.

Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting. Based on a confluence of macro forces that have never been experienced in modern history

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.

Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting. Based on a confluence of macro forces that have never been experienced in modern history

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.

Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting. Based on a confluence of macro forces that have never been experienced in modern history

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.

Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting. Based on a confluence of macro forces that have never been experienced in modern history

[Arraya]

[quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.

Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting. Based on a confluence of macro forces that have never been experienced in modern history

[outtamojo]

[quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.[/quote]

Go ahead, I laughed at him too, and Greenspan, and Lereah and nowadays, Roubini, Whitney. About the only guy I respect now on the semi big stage is Doug Kass who out predicted them all and I’ve never heard him mentioned here.

Edit: I left out Mish the deflationist, who was admonished by a poster for recommending that folks buy a freezer and stock up on meats. I never did see his answer for that one…

[outtamojo]

[quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.[/quote]

Go ahead, I laughed at him too, and Greenspan, and Lereah and nowadays, Roubini, Whitney. About the only guy I respect now on the semi big stage is Doug Kass who out predicted them all and I’ve never heard him mentioned here.

Edit: I left out Mish the deflationist, who was admonished by a poster for recommending that folks buy a freezer and stock up on meats. I never did see his answer for that one…

[outtamojo]

[quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.[/quote]

Go ahead, I laughed at him too, and Greenspan, and Lereah and nowadays, Roubini, Whitney. About the only guy I respect now on the semi big stage is Doug Kass who out predicted them all and I’ve never heard him mentioned here.

Edit: I left out Mish the deflationist, who was admonished by a poster for recommending that folks buy a freezer and stock up on meats. I never did see his answer for that one…

[outtamojo]

[quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.[/quote]

Go ahead, I laughed at him too, and Greenspan, and Lereah and nowadays, Roubini, Whitney. About the only guy I respect now on the semi big stage is Doug Kass who out predicted them all and I’ve never heard him mentioned here.

Edit: I left out Mish the deflationist, who was admonished by a poster for recommending that folks buy a freezer and stock up on meats. I never did see his answer for that one…

[outtamojo]

[quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo][quote=Arraya][quote=outtamojo]” Lack of building and less than trend household formation are bullish for prices in the far out future.[/quote]

This is making a huge assumption that we will be going back to historic economic growth patterns when all evidence points the contrary and in fact is probably impossible.[/quote]

In a nutshell, your assumptions are just as huge as mine and require just as much faith.[/quote]

Nonsense, because you don’t the slightest idea what I am talking about whereas I completely understand what you are talking about.

Economics is not a science. It’s a group of philosophers all trying to prove solipsism in a large circle jerk[/quote]

If you really understood what I was saying you would know that I was saying exactly what you said about economists and that is why I got such a kick out of the recent bump here http://piggington.com/us_to_default_on_its_debt_summer_2009

.[/quote]

Should I link Bernake’s quote in late 2005 that we are not in a housing bubble about to burst to refute this as evidence to the contrary?

No, it’s as irrelevant as that bump. Basically you are saying since this group of people said something negative and it did not come true therefore all negative comments about future economic developments are wrong. Or something to that affect.[/quote]

Go ahead, I laughed at him too, and Greenspan, and Lereah and nowadays, Roubini, Whitney. About the only guy I respect now on the semi big stage is Doug Kass who out predicted them all and I’ve never heard him mentioned here.

Edit: I left out Mish the deflationist, who was admonished by a poster for recommending that folks buy a freezer and stock up on meats. I never did see his answer for that one…

[ucodegen]

[quote Arraya]
Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting.
[/quote]
There are two ways to increase the price of a good, in this case housing.
1) Increase demand – often through prices or some pseudo price change like gov stimulus.
2) Constrain supply – like building fewer houses. I think this is the one that you are missing.

If there is no growth in supply, while demand grows albeit very slowly(population growth), prices will climb. Right now there is a surplus. In a condition of no new construction, prices will slowly go up as the ‘best’ properties get picked up and people over-bid on the remaining – trying to avoid being locked out. The increase in property prices will be very slow until most of the supply has been consumed.
Situations that can affect the price/demand interrelation:
1) Continued low employment, causing people to ‘go-off-the-grid’ so to say, or to double up(grown children moving back in with parents) which will reduce the demand for housing, and thereby the prices
2) Inflation will actually cause house prices to rise. In an inflation scenario, tangible goods.. ie food, housing, gold.. etc will rise in relation to the dollar. Right now we are seeing deflation still – part because of drop in true money supply (it also included all leverage-able tangible goods – largest of which are houses). The ‘printing’ of money is trying to offset this, but watch out for the ‘recoil’ when this type of slack is taken up.

The large home builders, ie KB, have effectively locked out the small contractors who would build houses .. through relations with cities & counties as well as locking up the land through land purchase options. The housing market is not a true ‘free market’ anymore.

[ucodegen]

[quote Arraya]
Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting.
[/quote]
There are two ways to increase the price of a good, in this case housing.
1) Increase demand – often through prices or some pseudo price change like gov stimulus.
2) Constrain supply – like building fewer houses. I think this is the one that you are missing.

If there is no growth in supply, while demand grows albeit very slowly(population growth), prices will climb. Right now there is a surplus. In a condition of no new construction, prices will slowly go up as the ‘best’ properties get picked up and people over-bid on the remaining – trying to avoid being locked out. The increase in property prices will be very slow until most of the supply has been consumed.
Situations that can affect the price/demand interrelation:
1) Continued low employment, causing people to ‘go-off-the-grid’ so to say, or to double up(grown children moving back in with parents) which will reduce the demand for housing, and thereby the prices
2) Inflation will actually cause house prices to rise. In an inflation scenario, tangible goods.. ie food, housing, gold.. etc will rise in relation to the dollar. Right now we are seeing deflation still – part because of drop in true money supply (it also included all leverage-able tangible goods – largest of which are houses). The ‘printing’ of money is trying to offset this, but watch out for the ‘recoil’ when this type of slack is taken up.

The large home builders, ie KB, have effectively locked out the small contractors who would build houses .. through relations with cities & counties as well as locking up the land through land purchase options. The housing market is not a true ‘free market’ anymore.

[ucodegen]

[quote Arraya]
Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting.
[/quote]
There are two ways to increase the price of a good, in this case housing.
1) Increase demand – often through prices or some pseudo price change like gov stimulus.
2) Constrain supply – like building fewer houses. I think this is the one that you are missing.

If there is no growth in supply, while demand grows albeit very slowly(population growth), prices will climb. Right now there is a surplus. In a condition of no new construction, prices will slowly go up as the ‘best’ properties get picked up and people over-bid on the remaining – trying to avoid being locked out. The increase in property prices will be very slow until most of the supply has been consumed.
Situations that can affect the price/demand interrelation:
1) Continued low employment, causing people to ‘go-off-the-grid’ so to say, or to double up(grown children moving back in with parents) which will reduce the demand for housing, and thereby the prices
2) Inflation will actually cause house prices to rise. In an inflation scenario, tangible goods.. ie food, housing, gold.. etc will rise in relation to the dollar. Right now we are seeing deflation still – part because of drop in true money supply (it also included all leverage-able tangible goods – largest of which are houses). The ‘printing’ of money is trying to offset this, but watch out for the ‘recoil’ when this type of slack is taken up.

The large home builders, ie KB, have effectively locked out the small contractors who would build houses .. through relations with cities & counties as well as locking up the land through land purchase options. The housing market is not a true ‘free market’ anymore.

[ucodegen]

[quote Arraya]
Back to our original assertion regarding low building being bullish for future RE prices. I stand by my assertion that you are basing your wishful thinking on historical growth patterns, and nothing else, that have extremely low to practically zero probability in manifesting.
[/quote]
There are two ways to increase the price of a good, in this case housing.
1) Increase demand – often through prices or some pseudo price change like gov stimulus.
2) Constrain supply – like building fewer houses. I think this is the one that you are missing.

If there is no growth in supply, while demand grows albeit very slowly(population growth), prices will climb. Right now there is a surplus. In a condition of no new construction, prices will slowly go up as the ‘best’ properties get picked up and people over-bid on the remaining – trying to avoid being locked out. The increase in property prices will be very slow until most of the supply has been consumed.
Situations that can affect the price/demand interrelation:
1) Continued low employment, causing people to ‘go-off-the-grid’ so to say, or to double up(grown children moving back in with parents) which will reduce the demand for housing, and thereby the prices
2) Inflation will actually cause house prices to rise. In an inflation scenario, tangible goods.. ie food, housing, gold.. etc will rise in relation to the dollar. Right now we are seeing deflation still – part because of drop in true money supply (it also included all leverage-able tangible goods – largest of which are houses). The ‘printing’ of money is trying to offset this, but watch out for the ‘recoil’ when this type of slack is taken up.

The large home builders, ie KB, have effectively locked out the small contractors who would build houses .. through relations with cities & counties as well as locking up the land through land purchase options. The housing market is not a true ‘free market’ anymore.

[Author]

Posts