[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj]
That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column

Interesting story on the budget. Claims that if you substitute the CPI for some state government price index, growth in spending is very close close to neutral with 1998-99.

I suppose I could see this. Health care and education make up a majority of the state budget, and those costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

Still, even when they use ‘their’ numbers the budget outpaced “par” by a little. So the argument isnt wrong as the author implies, just not the whole story, as is usual.

[quote] During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state’s population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget’s growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.[/quote]

And his argument that people didnt speak out is total crap. People not voting is a way of speaking out, it says “We are not gonna go along with every cockamamy idea you come up, we elected you, you figure it out.” If they had ment anything differnt, they woulda voted.

[quote]This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger’s claim that the election delivered a “loud and clear” message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who’s to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn’t intend to endorse the tax increase?[/quote]

[DWCAP]

[quote=davelj]
That’s a nice analysis of the REVENUE part of the equation, but it doesn’t explain why California’s SPENDING has increased at TWICE the rate it should have over the last 10 years based on inflation and population growth. Why Dr. Krugman tries to perform an analysis of CA’s income statement without a discussion of costs (re: spending) – that is, reducing them – speaks volumes regarding his own agenda. [/quote]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik28-2009may28,0,5001566,full.column

Interesting story on the budget. Claims that if you substitute the CPI for some state government price index, growth in spending is very close close to neutral with 1998-99.

I suppose I could see this. Health care and education make up a majority of the state budget, and those costs have been outpacing the CPI for years.

Still, even when they use ‘their’ numbers the budget outpaced “par” by a little. So the argument isnt wrong as the author implies, just not the whole story, as is usual.

[quote] During this time frame, which embraced two booms (dot-com and housing) and two busts (ditto), the state’s population grew about 30% to about 38 million, and inflation charged ahead by 50%. The budget’s growth, the legislative analyst found, exceeded these factors by only an average of 0.2% a year.[/quote]

And his argument that people didnt speak out is total crap. People not voting is a way of speaking out, it says “We are not gonna go along with every cockamamy idea you come up, we elected you, you figure it out.” If they had ment anything differnt, they woulda voted.

[quote]This makes a mockery of Schwarzenegger’s claim that the election delivered a “loud and clear” message. What message? Proposition 1A, if passed, would have extended a parcel of tax increases for an additional two years. Who’s to say that the 81% of eligible voters who just stayed home didn’t intend to endorse the tax increase?[/quote]

[DWCAP]

[quote=ibjames]the tenants getting kicked out freaks me out, how can you protect yourself from that?

buy a sub to foreclosure.com and keep track of nods to make sure your address doesn’t show up?[/quote]

Ask your LL how long they have owned the property before you rent. Anyone who bought in 2003-2005 is someone who you need to watch out for. Not saying dont rent the house cause of it, just take more precausions, like dataA’s idea. If they say since the 1970’s, it is unlikely that they are gonna screw you. (they coulda refinanced and be introuble, so you are not in the clear)

Also, look up the property taxes. Somone stiffing the bank isnt gonna be paying the property taxes either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=ibjames]the tenants getting kicked out freaks me out, how can you protect yourself from that?

buy a sub to foreclosure.com and keep track of nods to make sure your address doesn’t show up?[/quote]

Ask your LL how long they have owned the property before you rent. Anyone who bought in 2003-2005 is someone who you need to watch out for. Not saying dont rent the house cause of it, just take more precausions, like dataA’s idea. If they say since the 1970’s, it is unlikely that they are gonna screw you. (they coulda refinanced and be introuble, so you are not in the clear)

Also, look up the property taxes. Somone stiffing the bank isnt gonna be paying the property taxes either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=ibjames]the tenants getting kicked out freaks me out, how can you protect yourself from that?

buy a sub to foreclosure.com and keep track of nods to make sure your address doesn’t show up?[/quote]

Ask your LL how long they have owned the property before you rent. Anyone who bought in 2003-2005 is someone who you need to watch out for. Not saying dont rent the house cause of it, just take more precausions, like dataA’s idea. If they say since the 1970’s, it is unlikely that they are gonna screw you. (they coulda refinanced and be introuble, so you are not in the clear)

Also, look up the property taxes. Somone stiffing the bank isnt gonna be paying the property taxes either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=ibjames]the tenants getting kicked out freaks me out, how can you protect yourself from that?

buy a sub to foreclosure.com and keep track of nods to make sure your address doesn’t show up?[/quote]

Ask your LL how long they have owned the property before you rent. Anyone who bought in 2003-2005 is someone who you need to watch out for. Not saying dont rent the house cause of it, just take more precausions, like dataA’s idea. If they say since the 1970’s, it is unlikely that they are gonna screw you. (they coulda refinanced and be introuble, so you are not in the clear)

Also, look up the property taxes. Somone stiffing the bank isnt gonna be paying the property taxes either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=ibjames]the tenants getting kicked out freaks me out, how can you protect yourself from that?

buy a sub to foreclosure.com and keep track of nods to make sure your address doesn’t show up?[/quote]

Ask your LL how long they have owned the property before you rent. Anyone who bought in 2003-2005 is someone who you need to watch out for. Not saying dont rent the house cause of it, just take more precausions, like dataA’s idea. If they say since the 1970’s, it is unlikely that they are gonna screw you. (they coulda refinanced and be introuble, so you are not in the clear)

Also, look up the property taxes. Somone stiffing the bank isnt gonna be paying the property taxes either.

[DWCAP]

[quote=veees][quote=nostradamus]The first comment posted there says it all:

Jack Buhsmer wrote: Jesus, people. Learn what median means – lookup the definition. This is embarassing.[/quote]

Can someone elaborate a bit more on why median price is a bad stat to look at for housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing%5B/quote%5D

ok, read your link. Median house price is the point where half of the houses sold durring that time period sold for more, and half sold for less. If you get a structural shift in the type of houses being sold, then the median can swing wildly without any real change in the price of each house. Infact, the median can increase as prices are falling.

The stastical weakness in the median happened in late 06 to early 07, when subprime financing fell apart. Lower priced houses suddenly stopped being financed as often, so sales fell apart in the lower costs areas. Then, since fewer low cost houses were being sold, the median moved up even though the actual selling value of any house changed very little.

This may also be happening now, just slightly differently. Before only the cheapest of houses were selling. Now if people, feeling more comfortable with the economy, buy more expensive houses (in total number of houses sold) the median price can go up even though no change in actual sales values of each house was recorded.

Also, one or two month small moves in the median price are often trumpeted in the media as “turning points” or “signs of stabilzation” when really they are usually just stastical anomilies that could easily reverse themselves the next month. If we get 5-6 months of constantly increasing median prices, then we can ask if prices are actually increasing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=veees][quote=nostradamus]The first comment posted there says it all:

Jack Buhsmer wrote: Jesus, people. Learn what median means – lookup the definition. This is embarassing.[/quote]

Can someone elaborate a bit more on why median price is a bad stat to look at for housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing%5B/quote%5D

ok, read your link. Median house price is the point where half of the houses sold durring that time period sold for more, and half sold for less. If you get a structural shift in the type of houses being sold, then the median can swing wildly without any real change in the price of each house. Infact, the median can increase as prices are falling.

The stastical weakness in the median happened in late 06 to early 07, when subprime financing fell apart. Lower priced houses suddenly stopped being financed as often, so sales fell apart in the lower costs areas. Then, since fewer low cost houses were being sold, the median moved up even though the actual selling value of any house changed very little.

This may also be happening now, just slightly differently. Before only the cheapest of houses were selling. Now if people, feeling more comfortable with the economy, buy more expensive houses (in total number of houses sold) the median price can go up even though no change in actual sales values of each house was recorded.

Also, one or two month small moves in the median price are often trumpeted in the media as “turning points” or “signs of stabilzation” when really they are usually just stastical anomilies that could easily reverse themselves the next month. If we get 5-6 months of constantly increasing median prices, then we can ask if prices are actually increasing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=veees][quote=nostradamus]The first comment posted there says it all:

Jack Buhsmer wrote: Jesus, people. Learn what median means – lookup the definition. This is embarassing.[/quote]

Can someone elaborate a bit more on why median price is a bad stat to look at for housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing%5B/quote%5D

ok, read your link. Median house price is the point where half of the houses sold durring that time period sold for more, and half sold for less. If you get a structural shift in the type of houses being sold, then the median can swing wildly without any real change in the price of each house. Infact, the median can increase as prices are falling.

The stastical weakness in the median happened in late 06 to early 07, when subprime financing fell apart. Lower priced houses suddenly stopped being financed as often, so sales fell apart in the lower costs areas. Then, since fewer low cost houses were being sold, the median moved up even though the actual selling value of any house changed very little.

This may also be happening now, just slightly differently. Before only the cheapest of houses were selling. Now if people, feeling more comfortable with the economy, buy more expensive houses (in total number of houses sold) the median price can go up even though no change in actual sales values of each house was recorded.

Also, one or two month small moves in the median price are often trumpeted in the media as “turning points” or “signs of stabilzation” when really they are usually just stastical anomilies that could easily reverse themselves the next month. If we get 5-6 months of constantly increasing median prices, then we can ask if prices are actually increasing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=veees][quote=nostradamus]The first comment posted there says it all:

Jack Buhsmer wrote: Jesus, people. Learn what median means – lookup the definition. This is embarassing.[/quote]

Can someone elaborate a bit more on why median price is a bad stat to look at for housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing%5B/quote%5D

ok, read your link. Median house price is the point where half of the houses sold durring that time period sold for more, and half sold for less. If you get a structural shift in the type of houses being sold, then the median can swing wildly without any real change in the price of each house. Infact, the median can increase as prices are falling.

The stastical weakness in the median happened in late 06 to early 07, when subprime financing fell apart. Lower priced houses suddenly stopped being financed as often, so sales fell apart in the lower costs areas. Then, since fewer low cost houses were being sold, the median moved up even though the actual selling value of any house changed very little.

This may also be happening now, just slightly differently. Before only the cheapest of houses were selling. Now if people, feeling more comfortable with the economy, buy more expensive houses (in total number of houses sold) the median price can go up even though no change in actual sales values of each house was recorded.

Also, one or two month small moves in the median price are often trumpeted in the media as “turning points” or “signs of stabilzation” when really they are usually just stastical anomilies that could easily reverse themselves the next month. If we get 5-6 months of constantly increasing median prices, then we can ask if prices are actually increasing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=veees][quote=nostradamus]The first comment posted there says it all:

Jack Buhsmer wrote: Jesus, people. Learn what median means – lookup the definition. This is embarassing.[/quote]

Can someone elaborate a bit more on why median price is a bad stat to look at for housing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing%5B/quote%5D

ok, read your link. Median house price is the point where half of the houses sold durring that time period sold for more, and half sold for less. If you get a structural shift in the type of houses being sold, then the median can swing wildly without any real change in the price of each house. Infact, the median can increase as prices are falling.

The stastical weakness in the median happened in late 06 to early 07, when subprime financing fell apart. Lower priced houses suddenly stopped being financed as often, so sales fell apart in the lower costs areas. Then, since fewer low cost houses were being sold, the median moved up even though the actual selling value of any house changed very little.

This may also be happening now, just slightly differently. Before only the cheapest of houses were selling. Now if people, feeling more comfortable with the economy, buy more expensive houses (in total number of houses sold) the median price can go up even though no change in actual sales values of each house was recorded.

Also, one or two month small moves in the median price are often trumpeted in the media as “turning points” or “signs of stabilzation” when really they are usually just stastical anomilies that could easily reverse themselves the next month. If we get 5-6 months of constantly increasing median prices, then we can ask if prices are actually increasing.

[DWCAP]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]DWCAP –
This is a very short term effect and I would expect it to be followed by a slack in demand. Net effect would be a shift in demand forward by a month or two. Yes, there is pressure for those making offers now or in escrow to close before rates spike higher.

People who have been in the market and may have made several offers and have already made a decision to buy are the ones I refer to. Those who are planning to buy in 3-6 months or more in the future are probably more compelled to hold off because of a spike in rates.

Anyway, its just an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

[/quote]

FSD, well written as usual. I agree.

[DWCAP]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]DWCAP –
This is a very short term effect and I would expect it to be followed by a slack in demand. Net effect would be a shift in demand forward by a month or two. Yes, there is pressure for those making offers now or in escrow to close before rates spike higher.

People who have been in the market and may have made several offers and have already made a decision to buy are the ones I refer to. Those who are planning to buy in 3-6 months or more in the future are probably more compelled to hold off because of a spike in rates.

Anyway, its just an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

[/quote]

FSD, well written as usual. I agree.

[DWCAP]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]DWCAP –
This is a very short term effect and I would expect it to be followed by a slack in demand. Net effect would be a shift in demand forward by a month or two. Yes, there is pressure for those making offers now or in escrow to close before rates spike higher.

People who have been in the market and may have made several offers and have already made a decision to buy are the ones I refer to. Those who are planning to buy in 3-6 months or more in the future are probably more compelled to hold off because of a spike in rates.

Anyway, its just an opinion, based on anecdotal evidence and hearsay.

[/quote]

FSD, well written as usual. I agree.

[Author]

Posts