What is the best scenario?

[Anonymous]

The housing is just part of the over stretched credit problem. On the face, the home price goes down, the home owner loses equity. There maybe load adjustment, short sale, bank repossession etc. There may be some government assistance or bail out. But the big picture is really inflation, i.e. spread the pain to everybody. As this IS the BEST scenario. The US is spending at an unsustainable level both on individual level and government level. That is why we see the government running of deficit and many jobs moving overseas. We have seen signification loss of value in US dollar compared to Euro and Canadian dollar. Such inflation brings these benefits:
– The value of the debt denominated in US dollar goes down, making it easier to the government to repay the debts.
– The effective labor cost goes down. That will help export and slow down outsourcing.

The downside is:
– People with savings lose.
– Standard of living goes down.
– Interest rate goes up. It will be harder to live on debt in the future.

Back to the housing situation in San Diego, the cost will not return to really affordable level simply because there is no oversupply rather overpriced. It is just getting less over priced.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The best scenario is that the current situation forces us to buck up, get to work, be creative, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and start innovating again. Necessity is the mother of invention. Instead of dreaming up ways to slice and dice mortgages and slice off fees and financial engineering more of our collective efforts will be directed at renewable, clean energy and other endeavors. We will finally get off our fat-lazy arses (no effense FLU) and start being creative and innovative as a country.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The best scenario is that the current situation forces us to buck up, get to work, be creative, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and start innovating again. Necessity is the mother of invention. Instead of dreaming up ways to slice and dice mortgages and slice off fees and financial engineering more of our collective efforts will be directed at renewable, clean energy and other endeavors. We will finally get off our fat-lazy arses (no effense FLU) and start being creative and innovative as a country.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The best scenario is that the current situation forces us to buck up, get to work, be creative, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and start innovating again. Necessity is the mother of invention. Instead of dreaming up ways to slice and dice mortgages and slice off fees and financial engineering more of our collective efforts will be directed at renewable, clean energy and other endeavors. We will finally get off our fat-lazy arses (no effense FLU) and start being creative and innovative as a country.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The best scenario is that the current situation forces us to buck up, get to work, be creative, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and start innovating again. Necessity is the mother of invention. Instead of dreaming up ways to slice and dice mortgages and slice off fees and financial engineering more of our collective efforts will be directed at renewable, clean energy and other endeavors. We will finally get off our fat-lazy arses (no effense FLU) and start being creative and innovative as a country.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

The best scenario is that the current situation forces us to buck up, get to work, be creative, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and start innovating again. Necessity is the mother of invention. Instead of dreaming up ways to slice and dice mortgages and slice off fees and financial engineering more of our collective efforts will be directed at renewable, clean energy and other endeavors. We will finally get off our fat-lazy arses (no effense FLU) and start being creative and innovative as a country.

[HarryBosch]

ironman, People can only take so much pressure in terms of financial unfairness. I agree that just stating something is unfair doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Recent articles have stated that close to 9 percent of mortgages nationally were in trouble. That means that 91 percent of mortgages are not in trouble – at this (snapshot) point in time.

Assume taxpayers are mandated to pay for other people’s (the 9 percent) losses. I would expect more than just a grumble about it. I would expect revolt by some means.

If I’m a politician I would want to please the majority of voters – 91 percent would be my target audience for legislation pleasers. Simple math indicates that no bailouts – balanced on the backs of taxpayers – would be the type of legislation that I would want to pass. Homeowner bailout legislation would be too obvious.

(Having the majority support the minority reminds me of communism – and that didn’t work.)

So, if the politicians are trying to please the majority then it is surely not the majority of taxpayers. So it must be someone else – the banks and lenders. Follow the money.

[HarryBosch]

ironman, People can only take so much pressure in terms of financial unfairness. I agree that just stating something is unfair doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Recent articles have stated that close to 9 percent of mortgages nationally were in trouble. That means that 91 percent of mortgages are not in trouble – at this (snapshot) point in time.

Assume taxpayers are mandated to pay for other people’s (the 9 percent) losses. I would expect more than just a grumble about it. I would expect revolt by some means.

If I’m a politician I would want to please the majority of voters – 91 percent would be my target audience for legislation pleasers. Simple math indicates that no bailouts – balanced on the backs of taxpayers – would be the type of legislation that I would want to pass. Homeowner bailout legislation would be too obvious.

(Having the majority support the minority reminds me of communism – and that didn’t work.)

So, if the politicians are trying to please the majority then it is surely not the majority of taxpayers. So it must be someone else – the banks and lenders. Follow the money.

[HarryBosch]

ironman, People can only take so much pressure in terms of financial unfairness. I agree that just stating something is unfair doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Recent articles have stated that close to 9 percent of mortgages nationally were in trouble. That means that 91 percent of mortgages are not in trouble – at this (snapshot) point in time.

Assume taxpayers are mandated to pay for other people’s (the 9 percent) losses. I would expect more than just a grumble about it. I would expect revolt by some means.

If I’m a politician I would want to please the majority of voters – 91 percent would be my target audience for legislation pleasers. Simple math indicates that no bailouts – balanced on the backs of taxpayers – would be the type of legislation that I would want to pass. Homeowner bailout legislation would be too obvious.

(Having the majority support the minority reminds me of communism – and that didn’t work.)

So, if the politicians are trying to please the majority then it is surely not the majority of taxpayers. So it must be someone else – the banks and lenders. Follow the money.

[HarryBosch]

ironman, People can only take so much pressure in terms of financial unfairness. I agree that just stating something is unfair doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Recent articles have stated that close to 9 percent of mortgages nationally were in trouble. That means that 91 percent of mortgages are not in trouble – at this (snapshot) point in time.

Assume taxpayers are mandated to pay for other people’s (the 9 percent) losses. I would expect more than just a grumble about it. I would expect revolt by some means.

If I’m a politician I would want to please the majority of voters – 91 percent would be my target audience for legislation pleasers. Simple math indicates that no bailouts – balanced on the backs of taxpayers – would be the type of legislation that I would want to pass. Homeowner bailout legislation would be too obvious.

(Having the majority support the minority reminds me of communism – and that didn’t work.)

So, if the politicians are trying to please the majority then it is surely not the majority of taxpayers. So it must be someone else – the banks and lenders. Follow the money.

[HarryBosch]

ironman, People can only take so much pressure in terms of financial unfairness. I agree that just stating something is unfair doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Recent articles have stated that close to 9 percent of mortgages nationally were in trouble. That means that 91 percent of mortgages are not in trouble – at this (snapshot) point in time.

Assume taxpayers are mandated to pay for other people’s (the 9 percent) losses. I would expect more than just a grumble about it. I would expect revolt by some means.

If I’m a politician I would want to please the majority of voters – 91 percent would be my target audience for legislation pleasers. Simple math indicates that no bailouts – balanced on the backs of taxpayers – would be the type of legislation that I would want to pass. Homeowner bailout legislation would be too obvious.

(Having the majority support the minority reminds me of communism – and that didn’t work.)

So, if the politicians are trying to please the majority then it is surely not the majority of taxpayers. So it must be someone else – the banks and lenders. Follow the money.

[gdcox]

Kewp, Debt is destroyed over time by inflation, not deflation. The latter combined with bubble borrowing in the 20s caused the Great Depression (as Bernanke well knows)..

[gdcox]

Kewp, Debt is destroyed over time by inflation, not deflation. The latter combined with bubble borrowing in the 20s caused the Great Depression (as Bernanke well knows)..

[gdcox]

Kewp, Debt is destroyed over time by inflation, not deflation. The latter combined with bubble borrowing in the 20s caused the Great Depression (as Bernanke well knows)..

[gdcox]

Kewp, Debt is destroyed over time by inflation, not deflation. The latter combined with bubble borrowing in the 20s caused the Great Depression (as Bernanke well knows)..

[Author]

Posts