[DWCAP]

[quote=air_ogi]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

43% oppose it for being too liberal
39% favor it
13% oppose it for not being liberal enough
3% oppose it for some indeterminate reasons

so 52% of Americans went this reform or more liberal.[/quote]

That is one way of looking at it. But with a 2% majority and a 3% margin of error, those are pretty close olds. Lets see what the other questions in that poll said for a deeper understanding of the mood of the majority.
(questions paraphrased)

Do you think the amount you pay for health care will go up or down?
62% up
16% down
21% same.

Do you think your family will be better off, or worse off?
19% better off
47% worse off
33% the same

Do you think medicare reciepients will be better off or worse off?
Better 20%
Worse 45%
Same 34%

Do you think the Federal deficit will go up or down?

Up 70%
Down 12%
same 17%

So people feel this will worsen the deficit, not really help them, and cost them more for healthcare. That is not a ringing endorsement of your stance that the majority of Ameriacans really want this.
(rather I propose that alot of them ‘want’ it same as a majority want a BMW, but dont want to make the sacrifices to afford it.)

[DWCAP]

[quote=air_ogi]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

43% oppose it for being too liberal
39% favor it
13% oppose it for not being liberal enough
3% oppose it for some indeterminate reasons

so 52% of Americans went this reform or more liberal.[/quote]

That is one way of looking at it. But with a 2% majority and a 3% margin of error, those are pretty close olds. Lets see what the other questions in that poll said for a deeper understanding of the mood of the majority.
(questions paraphrased)

Do you think the amount you pay for health care will go up or down?
62% up
16% down
21% same.

Do you think your family will be better off, or worse off?
19% better off
47% worse off
33% the same

Do you think medicare reciepients will be better off or worse off?
Better 20%
Worse 45%
Same 34%

Do you think the Federal deficit will go up or down?

Up 70%
Down 12%
same 17%

So people feel this will worsen the deficit, not really help them, and cost them more for healthcare. That is not a ringing endorsement of your stance that the majority of Ameriacans really want this.
(rather I propose that alot of them ‘want’ it same as a majority want a BMW, but dont want to make the sacrifices to afford it.)

[DWCAP]

I agree with Davelj as well, but put slightly different blaime percentages on it. I feel he forgot the rest of the RE industry’s culpability in it all. The builders and agents and associated persons/groups who blitzed people with advertising and all the happy talk of ‘investments’. The appraisers who gave out-of-this-world values that enabled the loans. The newspapers who bend their headlines over for their advertisers. There are more associated with the industry, but you all know who they are.

Anyways just to make it easy I would say 30% Industry, 30% Lenders/banks/Wall Street and 40% borrowers. I give the extra 10% to the borrowers because none of it happens without their signature on the bottom line.

But like dave said; if they wanna be angry, that person in the mirror is first in line.

[DWCAP]

I agree with Davelj as well, but put slightly different blaime percentages on it. I feel he forgot the rest of the RE industry’s culpability in it all. The builders and agents and associated persons/groups who blitzed people with advertising and all the happy talk of ‘investments’. The appraisers who gave out-of-this-world values that enabled the loans. The newspapers who bend their headlines over for their advertisers. There are more associated with the industry, but you all know who they are.

Anyways just to make it easy I would say 30% Industry, 30% Lenders/banks/Wall Street and 40% borrowers. I give the extra 10% to the borrowers because none of it happens without their signature on the bottom line.

But like dave said; if they wanna be angry, that person in the mirror is first in line.

[DWCAP]

I agree with Davelj as well, but put slightly different blaime percentages on it. I feel he forgot the rest of the RE industry’s culpability in it all. The builders and agents and associated persons/groups who blitzed people with advertising and all the happy talk of ‘investments’. The appraisers who gave out-of-this-world values that enabled the loans. The newspapers who bend their headlines over for their advertisers. There are more associated with the industry, but you all know who they are.

Anyways just to make it easy I would say 30% Industry, 30% Lenders/banks/Wall Street and 40% borrowers. I give the extra 10% to the borrowers because none of it happens without their signature on the bottom line.

But like dave said; if they wanna be angry, that person in the mirror is first in line.

[DWCAP]

I agree with Davelj as well, but put slightly different blaime percentages on it. I feel he forgot the rest of the RE industry’s culpability in it all. The builders and agents and associated persons/groups who blitzed people with advertising and all the happy talk of ‘investments’. The appraisers who gave out-of-this-world values that enabled the loans. The newspapers who bend their headlines over for their advertisers. There are more associated with the industry, but you all know who they are.

Anyways just to make it easy I would say 30% Industry, 30% Lenders/banks/Wall Street and 40% borrowers. I give the extra 10% to the borrowers because none of it happens without their signature on the bottom line.

But like dave said; if they wanna be angry, that person in the mirror is first in line.

[DWCAP]

I agree with Davelj as well, but put slightly different blaime percentages on it. I feel he forgot the rest of the RE industry’s culpability in it all. The builders and agents and associated persons/groups who blitzed people with advertising and all the happy talk of ‘investments’. The appraisers who gave out-of-this-world values that enabled the loans. The newspapers who bend their headlines over for their advertisers. There are more associated with the industry, but you all know who they are.

Anyways just to make it easy I would say 30% Industry, 30% Lenders/banks/Wall Street and 40% borrowers. I give the extra 10% to the borrowers because none of it happens without their signature on the bottom line.

But like dave said; if they wanna be angry, that person in the mirror is first in line.

[DWCAP]

Zillow (and the like) is at best a marginally educated guess. Assuming the house is a row/tract house with few unique features, and assuming there have been a repeated stream of (above board) sales, AND assuming that the house is in general/’good’/normal condition; then you can say the zestimate is prob not far off.

Otherwise, well, procede at your own risk cause you really are flying blind at that point.

[DWCAP]

Zillow (and the like) is at best a marginally educated guess. Assuming the house is a row/tract house with few unique features, and assuming there have been a repeated stream of (above board) sales, AND assuming that the house is in general/’good’/normal condition; then you can say the zestimate is prob not far off.

Otherwise, well, procede at your own risk cause you really are flying blind at that point.

[DWCAP]

Zillow (and the like) is at best a marginally educated guess. Assuming the house is a row/tract house with few unique features, and assuming there have been a repeated stream of (above board) sales, AND assuming that the house is in general/’good’/normal condition; then you can say the zestimate is prob not far off.

Otherwise, well, procede at your own risk cause you really are flying blind at that point.

[DWCAP]

Zillow (and the like) is at best a marginally educated guess. Assuming the house is a row/tract house with few unique features, and assuming there have been a repeated stream of (above board) sales, AND assuming that the house is in general/’good’/normal condition; then you can say the zestimate is prob not far off.

Otherwise, well, procede at your own risk cause you really are flying blind at that point.

[DWCAP]

Zillow (and the like) is at best a marginally educated guess. Assuming the house is a row/tract house with few unique features, and assuming there have been a repeated stream of (above board) sales, AND assuming that the house is in general/’good’/normal condition; then you can say the zestimate is prob not far off.

Otherwise, well, procede at your own risk cause you really are flying blind at that point.

[DWCAP]

[quote=cabal]

You need to consider two other factors in terms of sustainability. First, the 625K house is worth a lot less today, maybe 400K? Second, during normal times, home builders can create wealth above and beyond the cost of raw materials, land and labor. However, all subsequent transactions are governed by the “Zero Sum Game” rules. In other words, for every person who paid bubble prices, an equal number of persons sold at bubble prices and that so called “credit bubble” money is now sitting in their bank accounts. Here the number of qualified people does not really change, perhaps marginally due to changes in stricter lending standards, interest rates, etc. Only their identities have really changed and these people with their sideline money are tired of renting and salivating at the opportunities. You can call this shadow demand. Only potential buyers at the entry level were reduced with bubble pricing. But this has also changed since low end corrections from peak exceed 50% restoring prices to historical norms. Lastly, the people who sat out the bubble years were unaffected. In summary – has the number of potential qualified people really changed due to bubble prices? No, the reductions are primarily due to unemployment and consumer confidence.[/quote]

I disagree with this. Three points:

One, you are assuming a national, if not international market. Housing in San Diego is not interchangable with housing in Iowa, and so is a different market. I personally know of 5 people who sold at bubble heights and moved to other markets, some instate, others out of state. ( and I am in my 20’s, I dont know that many people who own homes) That money has left this market, and will not continue to supply demand here. You can argue that bubble money from other markets replaced it, but demographic trends dont support that thoery. Californians leave for other areas of the country, it is international immigration and birth rates (first time buyers both) who support our population. Though I know atleast two couples who bubble $ is supplying a nice retirment in the midwest.

Second, I dont know anyone really ‘salavating’ at the current market oppertunities with the exception of some strong RE perma-bulls who had the exact same glandular problems back in 2006. Prices are near normal levels, at the uppper end of normal levels. Mostly because of alot of market distorting actions taken by our government to restrict supply while generating demand and driving down interest rates to generational lows lower than those that set off the bubble in the first place. All of these will need to be unwound and paid for, one way or another.

Lastly, people who sat out the bubble years are most certainly effected. Many have been devisted in the stock declines of 2000 and 2008 and are all the poorer for it. They are now plowing their money more and more into bonds, which will likly give them lower returns in the long run, lowering the quatlity of life in the future. Not to mention that taxes WILL have to go up, on everyone, to pay for the programs inacted to deal with the fallout of the housing bubble.

I am not a doom and gloomer, never have been. Ca can have the same bright future we have had in my parents generation. But I do think that there are real problems facing this state. Problems without easy solutions. We are not becoming Detroit in state form, atleast not currently, but we do have problems.
This glossy, all is well if I just wish upon a star mentality isnt helpful either though. It gives people comfort to ignor real problems, and scammers room to rape our economy again. Just because we did ok last time doesnt mean we will this time. ‘Past performance is not indicative of future results’, no matter how much we want them to be.

[DWCAP]

[quote=cabal]

You need to consider two other factors in terms of sustainability. First, the 625K house is worth a lot less today, maybe 400K? Second, during normal times, home builders can create wealth above and beyond the cost of raw materials, land and labor. However, all subsequent transactions are governed by the “Zero Sum Game” rules. In other words, for every person who paid bubble prices, an equal number of persons sold at bubble prices and that so called “credit bubble” money is now sitting in their bank accounts. Here the number of qualified people does not really change, perhaps marginally due to changes in stricter lending standards, interest rates, etc. Only their identities have really changed and these people with their sideline money are tired of renting and salivating at the opportunities. You can call this shadow demand. Only potential buyers at the entry level were reduced with bubble pricing. But this has also changed since low end corrections from peak exceed 50% restoring prices to historical norms. Lastly, the people who sat out the bubble years were unaffected. In summary – has the number of potential qualified people really changed due to bubble prices? No, the reductions are primarily due to unemployment and consumer confidence.[/quote]

I disagree with this. Three points:

One, you are assuming a national, if not international market. Housing in San Diego is not interchangable with housing in Iowa, and so is a different market. I personally know of 5 people who sold at bubble heights and moved to other markets, some instate, others out of state. ( and I am in my 20’s, I dont know that many people who own homes) That money has left this market, and will not continue to supply demand here. You can argue that bubble money from other markets replaced it, but demographic trends dont support that thoery. Californians leave for other areas of the country, it is international immigration and birth rates (first time buyers both) who support our population. Though I know atleast two couples who bubble $ is supplying a nice retirment in the midwest.

Second, I dont know anyone really ‘salavating’ at the current market oppertunities with the exception of some strong RE perma-bulls who had the exact same glandular problems back in 2006. Prices are near normal levels, at the uppper end of normal levels. Mostly because of alot of market distorting actions taken by our government to restrict supply while generating demand and driving down interest rates to generational lows lower than those that set off the bubble in the first place. All of these will need to be unwound and paid for, one way or another.

Lastly, people who sat out the bubble years are most certainly effected. Many have been devisted in the stock declines of 2000 and 2008 and are all the poorer for it. They are now plowing their money more and more into bonds, which will likly give them lower returns in the long run, lowering the quatlity of life in the future. Not to mention that taxes WILL have to go up, on everyone, to pay for the programs inacted to deal with the fallout of the housing bubble.

I am not a doom and gloomer, never have been. Ca can have the same bright future we have had in my parents generation. But I do think that there are real problems facing this state. Problems without easy solutions. We are not becoming Detroit in state form, atleast not currently, but we do have problems.
This glossy, all is well if I just wish upon a star mentality isnt helpful either though. It gives people comfort to ignor real problems, and scammers room to rape our economy again. Just because we did ok last time doesnt mean we will this time. ‘Past performance is not indicative of future results’, no matter how much we want them to be.

[DWCAP]

[quote=cabal]

You need to consider two other factors in terms of sustainability. First, the 625K house is worth a lot less today, maybe 400K? Second, during normal times, home builders can create wealth above and beyond the cost of raw materials, land and labor. However, all subsequent transactions are governed by the “Zero Sum Game” rules. In other words, for every person who paid bubble prices, an equal number of persons sold at bubble prices and that so called “credit bubble” money is now sitting in their bank accounts. Here the number of qualified people does not really change, perhaps marginally due to changes in stricter lending standards, interest rates, etc. Only their identities have really changed and these people with their sideline money are tired of renting and salivating at the opportunities. You can call this shadow demand. Only potential buyers at the entry level were reduced with bubble pricing. But this has also changed since low end corrections from peak exceed 50% restoring prices to historical norms. Lastly, the people who sat out the bubble years were unaffected. In summary – has the number of potential qualified people really changed due to bubble prices? No, the reductions are primarily due to unemployment and consumer confidence.[/quote]

I disagree with this. Three points:

One, you are assuming a national, if not international market. Housing in San Diego is not interchangable with housing in Iowa, and so is a different market. I personally know of 5 people who sold at bubble heights and moved to other markets, some instate, others out of state. ( and I am in my 20’s, I dont know that many people who own homes) That money has left this market, and will not continue to supply demand here. You can argue that bubble money from other markets replaced it, but demographic trends dont support that thoery. Californians leave for other areas of the country, it is international immigration and birth rates (first time buyers both) who support our population. Though I know atleast two couples who bubble $ is supplying a nice retirment in the midwest.

Second, I dont know anyone really ‘salavating’ at the current market oppertunities with the exception of some strong RE perma-bulls who had the exact same glandular problems back in 2006. Prices are near normal levels, at the uppper end of normal levels. Mostly because of alot of market distorting actions taken by our government to restrict supply while generating demand and driving down interest rates to generational lows lower than those that set off the bubble in the first place. All of these will need to be unwound and paid for, one way or another.

Lastly, people who sat out the bubble years are most certainly effected. Many have been devisted in the stock declines of 2000 and 2008 and are all the poorer for it. They are now plowing their money more and more into bonds, which will likly give them lower returns in the long run, lowering the quatlity of life in the future. Not to mention that taxes WILL have to go up, on everyone, to pay for the programs inacted to deal with the fallout of the housing bubble.

I am not a doom and gloomer, never have been. Ca can have the same bright future we have had in my parents generation. But I do think that there are real problems facing this state. Problems without easy solutions. We are not becoming Detroit in state form, atleast not currently, but we do have problems.
This glossy, all is well if I just wish upon a star mentality isnt helpful either though. It gives people comfort to ignor real problems, and scammers room to rape our economy again. Just because we did ok last time doesnt mean we will this time. ‘Past performance is not indicative of future results’, no matter how much we want them to be.

[Author]

Posts