[barnaby33]

Your second point is even more nebulous, money as a store of wealth. Yikes that is one of the great debates of history. Since its really hard to define wealth is, we all see different things as wealth. It is even more derivative to claim something is an effective store of wealth.

I understand some of the historical context of why you would make that statement, but I don’t agree with it. Money, wealth, value, these are all concepts which have tended to vary throughout history. I will end my contributions to this thread by saying this.

Past performance is not an indicator of future results. How we view concepts such as money and wealth are relative to the lives we lead. Unless the context of those lives is changed dramatically our conceptualization will not change dramatically. One generations asset is anothers liability.

Josh

[barnaby33]

How about renting closer to work? If you are here on this site, it means you probably think that the real estate market is overvalued. If so, just rent. The area you are talking about is ok, but 280 for a 2brdm seems really high to me. Even if it only devalues by 20% over the next few years thats almost 50k. Thats alot of rent.

Josh

[barnaby33]

I take umbrage with the statement that gold and or silver are the only real money. When you get right down to it money is merely an idea. Nothing is really money if no one will accept it, and the mere fact that most but not all societies have historically based their currencies on the relative scarcity of gold does not make it real money, anything more than the round cut stones used for money in polynesian cultures. Anything can be money as long as people will accept it in trade for goods and services.

The proof of this is the fact that paper money has not been needed to be backed by gold to hold up as an exchange medium. What I will grant you is this. If there is a systemic shock to our economy people will want to know that their money is worth something and will only trade for things that they know are scarce and desirable. Then gold becomes money. If I can’t walk into Trader Joes and get a bottle of 2 buck chuck half a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread with it, it ain’t money. If I can it is.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Hey guys this is way off topic. Lets keep it about housing, and please stay away from the immigrant bashing. Its easy, its populist, its in many ways irrelevant to the topic we come here to discuss.

Josh

[barnaby33]

No he is a dumb-ass plain and simple. I know he’s lying, and unlike Rich I don’t mind saying so. I watched the slow painful burn and its direct effect on my life over the coarse of several years.

Josh

[barnaby33]

IMHO, if two realtors said it, it must be true. They wouldn’t lie, the radio said they adhere to a code of ethics.

Oh wait a minute, didn’t a declining real estate market, specifically in poway in 90-94 cost my parents their marriage and a house that at its peak was worth 600k but ended up going for under 300. Why yes, yes it did.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Per NPR on my morning commute San Diego lost only 1300 people this year, but its a start.

Josh

[barnaby33]

The last successfull attempt was Rome and it didn’t end well. I am a software engineer, my job is almost as at risk as any blue collar factory worker and yet. I believe like Rich that in many ways tariffs are a bad thing. They inhibit the most effective use of capital. There are reasons however why tariffs are not always bad. For one thing there are lots of issues which the market cannot address. For instance while it maybe much cheaper to produce food overseas, its a strategically bad idea.

The challenge in our present system is only to protect enough of those industries that would be required to sustain us through either a major war, or total economic collapse.

So while subsiziding detroit doesn’t seem like such a great idea, subsidizing food production does. Yes its inefficient, but that is not always bad. We just need to decide when it is and is not in our interest as a nation.

(Way off topic of housing but important as an economic fundamental)

Josh

[barnaby33]

Tightening lending standards will get you more affordability than lowering interest rates, though I think in the coming bust both will help. Less people able to borrow means less potential buyers. If your friends have good credit that will be the determining factor in improving affordability as lending institutions will be taking less if any risks. There is a whole passle of things that go along with a bubble bursting that will help some people and hurt others. I honestly can’t think of a scenario that justifies purchasing at this point, unless you are staring in a re-make of brewsters millions and you literally have money burning a hole in your pocket.

Josh

[barnaby33]

If you buy anything cheap enough you can make a profit, even in a descending market.

Josh

[barnaby33]

That number probably came from ZipRealty.

Josh

[barnaby33]

I wasn’t implying that you had mentioned it, only that we shouldn’t look at the number in isolation. “All things piggington” was really meant to mean, hey lets crunch some numbers. You mentioned what I was thinking. 19k was the highpoint last time, but we had less people less houses etc. Even just doing a straight extraction of listings/vs population would drive that number up.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Because the are there. Doing your own research is much more difficult than listening to the successfull smartly dressed sales agent.

Josh

[barnaby33]

There is a development in Hillcrest right north of washington. The developer turned all the 2 bedroom apts into large 1 bedroom condos albeit at a 2 bedroom price. The agent was right up front though that the reason for this was the parking situation. I saw one at an open house 2 months ago and most of them had sold.

I too feel that 1 bedroom condos are basically pointless, especially in a fairly low density area. Then again, someone is buying them.

Josh

[barnaby33]

Why is 19k the magic number? I have heard that it was the highpoint of inventory last bust, but why is that significant? As with most things piggington related, shouldn’t we try to arrive at a number of listings which has some underlying significance? Say the number at which 2% or 5% will be in foreclosure? I ask this because I don’t think that the number of listings is particularly important. Its what it implies that is important and thats what we should be trying to gauge, seller “motivation.”

Josh

[Author]

Posts