NYT article: Housing Woes Bring a New Cry: Let the Market Fall

[danielwis]

I don’t know if I buy all this. The market has dropped quite a bit already. There will more corrections in some markets, but I think the majority of markets are at or very close to the bottom. That said, I wouldn’t buy yet. I’d rather miss the bottom and catch the upswing a little late, than risk being part of another down turn.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe Rich and SDR are right, but I’m still hopeful that somebody will come in and stop funneling all this money to the financial industry.[/quote]

I’m afraid that more bailout money/subsidy will be flowing to the financial industry.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center, said: “What this says is that Wall Street is awfully angry with Democrats and sees Republicans as a better bet. They’re making an investment in the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress that they perceive to be more favorable toward their bottom line.”

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe Rich and SDR are right, but I’m still hopeful that somebody will come in and stop funneling all this money to the financial industry.[/quote]

I’m afraid that more bailout money/subsidy will be flowing to the financial industry.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center, said: “What this says is that Wall Street is awfully angry with Democrats and sees Republicans as a better bet. They’re making an investment in the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress that they perceive to be more favorable toward their bottom line.”

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe Rich and SDR are right, but I’m still hopeful that somebody will come in and stop funneling all this money to the financial industry.[/quote]

I’m afraid that more bailout money/subsidy will be flowing to the financial industry.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center, said: “What this says is that Wall Street is awfully angry with Democrats and sees Republicans as a better bet. They’re making an investment in the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress that they perceive to be more favorable toward their bottom line.”

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe Rich and SDR are right, but I’m still hopeful that somebody will come in and stop funneling all this money to the financial industry.[/quote]

I’m afraid that more bailout money/subsidy will be flowing to the financial industry.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center, said: “What this says is that Wall Street is awfully angry with Democrats and sees Republicans as a better bet. They’re making an investment in the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress that they perceive to be more favorable toward their bottom line.”

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Maybe Rich and SDR are right, but I’m still hopeful that somebody will come in and stop funneling all this money to the financial industry.[/quote]

I’m afraid that more bailout money/subsidy will be flowing to the financial industry.

Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the center, said: “What this says is that Wall Street is awfully angry with Democrats and sees Republicans as a better bet. They’re making an investment in the prospect of a Republican-controlled Congress that they perceive to be more favorable toward their bottom line.”

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Kind of helps when you have jobs so that people need to go to those transportation hubs to come visit.

As much as everyone hates to hear it, unless you enhance opportunities for corporations to operate in the USA the more jobs will leave our country.

. . .
[/quote]

What about taking a small fraction ($1 billion) of the amount that has gone out in bail out money and give it back to the U.S. patent office? Congress has had a long habit of diverting funds from PTO coffers, resulting in a huge backlog of cases. Judge Paul Michel (a judge who sits on the the bench for the U.S. Court of Appeals that hears patent cases) wrote a very convincing article in the NYT entitled Inventing our Way Out of Joblessness that reached the following conclusion:

“So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be 525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.”

Perhaps we wouldn’t have to decide about whether to let the market fall if we could something about creating more jobs. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Kind of helps when you have jobs so that people need to go to those transportation hubs to come visit.

As much as everyone hates to hear it, unless you enhance opportunities for corporations to operate in the USA the more jobs will leave our country.

. . .
[/quote]

What about taking a small fraction ($1 billion) of the amount that has gone out in bail out money and give it back to the U.S. patent office? Congress has had a long habit of diverting funds from PTO coffers, resulting in a huge backlog of cases. Judge Paul Michel (a judge who sits on the the bench for the U.S. Court of Appeals that hears patent cases) wrote a very convincing article in the NYT entitled Inventing our Way Out of Joblessness that reached the following conclusion:

“So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be 525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.”

Perhaps we wouldn’t have to decide about whether to let the market fall if we could something about creating more jobs. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Kind of helps when you have jobs so that people need to go to those transportation hubs to come visit.

As much as everyone hates to hear it, unless you enhance opportunities for corporations to operate in the USA the more jobs will leave our country.

. . .
[/quote]

What about taking a small fraction ($1 billion) of the amount that has gone out in bail out money and give it back to the U.S. patent office? Congress has had a long habit of diverting funds from PTO coffers, resulting in a huge backlog of cases. Judge Paul Michel (a judge who sits on the the bench for the U.S. Court of Appeals that hears patent cases) wrote a very convincing article in the NYT entitled Inventing our Way Out of Joblessness that reached the following conclusion:

“So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be 525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.”

Perhaps we wouldn’t have to decide about whether to let the market fall if we could something about creating more jobs. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Kind of helps when you have jobs so that people need to go to those transportation hubs to come visit.

As much as everyone hates to hear it, unless you enhance opportunities for corporations to operate in the USA the more jobs will leave our country.

. . .
[/quote]

What about taking a small fraction ($1 billion) of the amount that has gone out in bail out money and give it back to the U.S. patent office? Congress has had a long habit of diverting funds from PTO coffers, resulting in a huge backlog of cases. Judge Paul Michel (a judge who sits on the the bench for the U.S. Court of Appeals that hears patent cases) wrote a very convincing article in the NYT entitled Inventing our Way Out of Joblessness that reached the following conclusion:

“So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be 525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.”

Perhaps we wouldn’t have to decide about whether to let the market fall if we could something about creating more jobs. . .

[njtosd]

[quote=SD Realtor]Kind of helps when you have jobs so that people need to go to those transportation hubs to come visit.

As much as everyone hates to hear it, unless you enhance opportunities for corporations to operate in the USA the more jobs will leave our country.

. . .
[/quote]

What about taking a small fraction ($1 billion) of the amount that has gone out in bail out money and give it back to the U.S. patent office? Congress has had a long habit of diverting funds from PTO coffers, resulting in a huge backlog of cases. Judge Paul Michel (a judge who sits on the the bench for the U.S. Court of Appeals that hears patent cases) wrote a very convincing article in the NYT entitled Inventing our Way Out of Joblessness that reached the following conclusion:

“So our guess is that restoring the patent office to full functionality would create, over the next three years, at least 675,000 and as many as 2.25 million jobs. Assuming a mid-range figure of 1.5 million, the price would be roughly $660 per job — and that would be 525 times more cost effective than the 2.5 million jobs created by the government’s $787 billion stimulus plan.”

Perhaps we wouldn’t have to decide about whether to let the market fall if we could something about creating more jobs. . .

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=danielwis]There will more corrections in some markets, but I think the majority of markets are at or very close to the bottom.[/quote]

I’m not sure… prices in So. Cal. were depressed in the mid 1990s, and grossly inflated by 2005. If you take a house that sold for $400K in 2000, and allow a generous 35% increase to account for inflation over the last decade, that house should sell for under $550K today.

Truth is, a house like that in, say, Orange County would have sold for $800K or more at the peak of the Great Bubble (2005-2006), but today sells in the $680K-$720K range. Still overpriced relative to $540K. Had the govt not distorted the markets so much, maybe that house would be selling for less than $600K today.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=danielwis]There will more corrections in some markets, but I think the majority of markets are at or very close to the bottom.[/quote]

I’m not sure… prices in So. Cal. were depressed in the mid 1990s, and grossly inflated by 2005. If you take a house that sold for $400K in 2000, and allow a generous 35% increase to account for inflation over the last decade, that house should sell for under $550K today.

Truth is, a house like that in, say, Orange County would have sold for $800K or more at the peak of the Great Bubble (2005-2006), but today sells in the $680K-$720K range. Still overpriced relative to $540K. Had the govt not distorted the markets so much, maybe that house would be selling for less than $600K today.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=danielwis]There will more corrections in some markets, but I think the majority of markets are at or very close to the bottom.[/quote]

I’m not sure… prices in So. Cal. were depressed in the mid 1990s, and grossly inflated by 2005. If you take a house that sold for $400K in 2000, and allow a generous 35% increase to account for inflation over the last decade, that house should sell for under $550K today.

Truth is, a house like that in, say, Orange County would have sold for $800K or more at the peak of the Great Bubble (2005-2006), but today sells in the $680K-$720K range. Still overpriced relative to $540K. Had the govt not distorted the markets so much, maybe that house would be selling for less than $600K today.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=danielwis]There will more corrections in some markets, but I think the majority of markets are at or very close to the bottom.[/quote]

I’m not sure… prices in So. Cal. were depressed in the mid 1990s, and grossly inflated by 2005. If you take a house that sold for $400K in 2000, and allow a generous 35% increase to account for inflation over the last decade, that house should sell for under $550K today.

Truth is, a house like that in, say, Orange County would have sold for $800K or more at the peak of the Great Bubble (2005-2006), but today sells in the $680K-$720K range. Still overpriced relative to $540K. Had the govt not distorted the markets so much, maybe that house would be selling for less than $600K today.

[Author]

Posts