What the hell????Throwing money after money after money…

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value. [/quote]

That’s why I’ve argued that if you have patience and can rent a nice place to live, you’ll be rewarded.

With inflation, prices will adjust to equilibrium.

Most homeowners don’t look at carrying cost and inflation. If in 15 years they can sell their houses for the same price they bought, they would have called it a victory.

Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Yep.

Pushing paper around to create wealth won’t last forever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Yep.

Pushing paper around to create wealth won’t last forever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Yep.

Pushing paper around to create wealth won’t last forever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Yep.

Pushing paper around to create wealth won’t last forever.

[briansd1]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Yep.

Pushing paper around to create wealth won’t last forever.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Not just something else but an entire manufacturing sector. And for this to happen we need to evaluate/modify/ our enviromental policies and restrictions. Not encouraging billowing smokestacks or toxic dumping. But when 20-30% of the cost of new large scale civil infrastructure projects are spent on environmental permits, studies, impact reports, mitigation, and project delays is hurting growth.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Not just something else but an entire manufacturing sector. And for this to happen we need to evaluate/modify/ our enviromental policies and restrictions. Not encouraging billowing smokestacks or toxic dumping. But when 20-30% of the cost of new large scale civil infrastructure projects are spent on environmental permits, studies, impact reports, mitigation, and project delays is hurting growth.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Not just something else but an entire manufacturing sector. And for this to happen we need to evaluate/modify/ our enviromental policies and restrictions. Not encouraging billowing smokestacks or toxic dumping. But when 20-30% of the cost of new large scale civil infrastructure projects are spent on environmental permits, studies, impact reports, mitigation, and project delays is hurting growth.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV]
If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)[/quote]

Not just something else but an entire manufacturing sector. And for this to happen we need to evaluate/modify/ our enviromental policies and restrictions. Not encouraging billowing smokestacks or toxic dumping. But when 20-30% of the cost of new large scale civil infrastructure projects are spent on environmental permits, studies, impact reports, mitigation, and project delays is hurting growth.

[Author]

Posts