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

[scaredyclassic]

i understand that this is just economists talking but what about this scenario: there is a sharp decline in the DJIA or housing or someething, there is emergency action taken, but it’s a bit slower or less grand in scope this time because of a general sentiment that stimulus is in vain, and it just doesn’t work this time around.

What if they lose control of the situation? Isn’t that at least a real possibility?

The article spoke to me, but of course, you hear what you want to hear and you see what you want to see.

[CA renter]

I hear and see the same thing you are, scaredy.

They have run low on ammunition, and the voters are getting tired of all the spending just to keep housing prices at unaffordable levels. I think we’re going to see much less money directed toward housing in the future. We can hope.

[CA renter]

I hear and see the same thing you are, scaredy.

They have run low on ammunition, and the voters are getting tired of all the spending just to keep housing prices at unaffordable levels. I think we’re going to see much less money directed toward housing in the future. We can hope.

[CA renter]

I hear and see the same thing you are, scaredy.

They have run low on ammunition, and the voters are getting tired of all the spending just to keep housing prices at unaffordable levels. I think we’re going to see much less money directed toward housing in the future. We can hope.

[CA renter]

I hear and see the same thing you are, scaredy.

They have run low on ammunition, and the voters are getting tired of all the spending just to keep housing prices at unaffordable levels. I think we’re going to see much less money directed toward housing in the future. We can hope.

[CA renter]

I hear and see the same thing you are, scaredy.

They have run low on ammunition, and the voters are getting tired of all the spending just to keep housing prices at unaffordable levels. I think we’re going to see much less money directed toward housing in the future. We can hope.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The idea may be getting some scattered play among economists, but I am skeptical that those in power would just let the market play out without intervention. I think that people are not sick of stimulus per se, they are sick of stimulus that isn’t helping them individually. So I could see the approach changing but it’s hard to envision them just backing off entirely.

This goes double if we start to get another leg down. It’s one thing to talk about austerity when things look like they are recovering; it’s another to do it in the midst of a panic or big downleg. (Think of the TARP, all it took was a market decline to get that passed on the second go).

I do agree that if the people who are talking austerity get elected, they will have to do something to appear austere. But I don’t think it will last, especially if we get another serious downleg in the housing market or economy.[/quote]

That all makes sense. But what about this scenario: The republicans win congress in November. None of the bills the democrats propose have enough votes to pass. The republicans propose bills that they say are austere and claim will help the situation, knowing Obama will veto them. Obama does veto them because he knows they will tank the market and the economy. The stimulus fades away because no new measures are taken. The republicans can blame Obama, saying that, if their bills had been passed, the economy would’ve recovered. Obama will blame the republicans, saying that their measures were faulty. Nobody feels like have to take the blame, which is all politics seems to be about any more.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The idea may be getting some scattered play among economists, but I am skeptical that those in power would just let the market play out without intervention. I think that people are not sick of stimulus per se, they are sick of stimulus that isn’t helping them individually. So I could see the approach changing but it’s hard to envision them just backing off entirely.

This goes double if we start to get another leg down. It’s one thing to talk about austerity when things look like they are recovering; it’s another to do it in the midst of a panic or big downleg. (Think of the TARP, all it took was a market decline to get that passed on the second go).

I do agree that if the people who are talking austerity get elected, they will have to do something to appear austere. But I don’t think it will last, especially if we get another serious downleg in the housing market or economy.[/quote]

That all makes sense. But what about this scenario: The republicans win congress in November. None of the bills the democrats propose have enough votes to pass. The republicans propose bills that they say are austere and claim will help the situation, knowing Obama will veto them. Obama does veto them because he knows they will tank the market and the economy. The stimulus fades away because no new measures are taken. The republicans can blame Obama, saying that, if their bills had been passed, the economy would’ve recovered. Obama will blame the republicans, saying that their measures were faulty. Nobody feels like have to take the blame, which is all politics seems to be about any more.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The idea may be getting some scattered play among economists, but I am skeptical that those in power would just let the market play out without intervention. I think that people are not sick of stimulus per se, they are sick of stimulus that isn’t helping them individually. So I could see the approach changing but it’s hard to envision them just backing off entirely.

This goes double if we start to get another leg down. It’s one thing to talk about austerity when things look like they are recovering; it’s another to do it in the midst of a panic or big downleg. (Think of the TARP, all it took was a market decline to get that passed on the second go).

I do agree that if the people who are talking austerity get elected, they will have to do something to appear austere. But I don’t think it will last, especially if we get another serious downleg in the housing market or economy.[/quote]

That all makes sense. But what about this scenario: The republicans win congress in November. None of the bills the democrats propose have enough votes to pass. The republicans propose bills that they say are austere and claim will help the situation, knowing Obama will veto them. Obama does veto them because he knows they will tank the market and the economy. The stimulus fades away because no new measures are taken. The republicans can blame Obama, saying that, if their bills had been passed, the economy would’ve recovered. Obama will blame the republicans, saying that their measures were faulty. Nobody feels like have to take the blame, which is all politics seems to be about any more.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The idea may be getting some scattered play among economists, but I am skeptical that those in power would just let the market play out without intervention. I think that people are not sick of stimulus per se, they are sick of stimulus that isn’t helping them individually. So I could see the approach changing but it’s hard to envision them just backing off entirely.

This goes double if we start to get another leg down. It’s one thing to talk about austerity when things look like they are recovering; it’s another to do it in the midst of a panic or big downleg. (Think of the TARP, all it took was a market decline to get that passed on the second go).

I do agree that if the people who are talking austerity get elected, they will have to do something to appear austere. But I don’t think it will last, especially if we get another serious downleg in the housing market or economy.[/quote]

That all makes sense. But what about this scenario: The republicans win congress in November. None of the bills the democrats propose have enough votes to pass. The republicans propose bills that they say are austere and claim will help the situation, knowing Obama will veto them. Obama does veto them because he knows they will tank the market and the economy. The stimulus fades away because no new measures are taken. The republicans can blame Obama, saying that, if their bills had been passed, the economy would’ve recovered. Obama will blame the republicans, saying that their measures were faulty. Nobody feels like have to take the blame, which is all politics seems to be about any more.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The idea may be getting some scattered play among economists, but I am skeptical that those in power would just let the market play out without intervention. I think that people are not sick of stimulus per se, they are sick of stimulus that isn’t helping them individually. So I could see the approach changing but it’s hard to envision them just backing off entirely.

This goes double if we start to get another leg down. It’s one thing to talk about austerity when things look like they are recovering; it’s another to do it in the midst of a panic or big downleg. (Think of the TARP, all it took was a market decline to get that passed on the second go).

I do agree that if the people who are talking austerity get elected, they will have to do something to appear austere. But I don’t think it will last, especially if we get another serious downleg in the housing market or economy.[/quote]

That all makes sense. But what about this scenario: The republicans win congress in November. None of the bills the democrats propose have enough votes to pass. The republicans propose bills that they say are austere and claim will help the situation, knowing Obama will veto them. Obama does veto them because he knows they will tank the market and the economy. The stimulus fades away because no new measures are taken. The republicans can blame Obama, saying that, if their bills had been passed, the economy would’ve recovered. Obama will blame the republicans, saying that their measures were faulty. Nobody feels like have to take the blame, which is all politics seems to be about any more.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

You want to solve this problem and not have another housing bubble in the future,

Simple , get rid of the cause,

Get rid of “Owners equivalent rent”

Go back to the way we calculated CPI before 1981.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

You want to solve this problem and not have another housing bubble in the future,

Simple , get rid of the cause,

Get rid of “Owners equivalent rent”

Go back to the way we calculated CPI before 1981.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

You want to solve this problem and not have another housing bubble in the future,

Simple , get rid of the cause,

Get rid of “Owners equivalent rent”

Go back to the way we calculated CPI before 1981.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

You want to solve this problem and not have another housing bubble in the future,

Simple , get rid of the cause,

Get rid of “Owners equivalent rent”

Go back to the way we calculated CPI before 1981.

[Author]

Posts