Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM in reply to: 1500 sq-ft house in MM just sold for $500k, did I miss the memo? #426467July 6, 2009 at 2:08 PM in reply to: 1500 sq-ft house in MM just sold for $500k, did I miss the memo? #426630
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
We were actually talking about that when I showed her this house. She’s perfectly fine going back to renting if we can pocket $100k :-).[/quote]For $100k, you’re not leaving the house to the kids.
Typical NIMBY self-serving type mentality. Nothing do to with economics and fundamentals.[/quote]
A NIMBY is someone who does not want development in their neighborhood (as in “Not In My BackYard).
What does NIMBYism have to do with AN’s comments ?
Pending other evidence to the contrary, the above quip by briansd1 appears to be intended to incite versus enlighten or prove a point.
July 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM in reply to: OT: India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance #425726Participant[quote=bsrsharma]I don’t understand all this BRIC noise; especially China’s antics. Treasuries are as high as they can ever get; why can’t they silently start unloading a little at a time. I think market can digest about $1T per year without total collapse since Bernanke just proved it by quantitative easing. They can diversify enough in about 5-10 years without killing everybody. U.S. would be badly hurt, like ’70s, but the world won’t end.[/quote]
You might be right, but who’s going to read an article about a gradual tansition away from the dollar ?
July 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM in reply to: OT: India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance #425956Participant[quote=bsrsharma]I don’t understand all this BRIC noise; especially China’s antics. Treasuries are as high as they can ever get; why can’t they silently start unloading a little at a time. I think market can digest about $1T per year without total collapse since Bernanke just proved it by quantitative easing. They can diversify enough in about 5-10 years without killing everybody. U.S. would be badly hurt, like ’70s, but the world won’t end.[/quote]
You might be right, but who’s going to read an article about a gradual tansition away from the dollar ?
July 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM in reply to: OT: India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance #426241Participant[quote=bsrsharma]I don’t understand all this BRIC noise; especially China’s antics. Treasuries are as high as they can ever get; why can’t they silently start unloading a little at a time. I think market can digest about $1T per year without total collapse since Bernanke just proved it by quantitative easing. They can diversify enough in about 5-10 years without killing everybody. U.S. would be badly hurt, like ’70s, but the world won’t end.[/quote]
You might be right, but who’s going to read an article about a gradual tansition away from the dollar ?
July 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM in reply to: OT: India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance #426311Participant[quote=bsrsharma]I don’t understand all this BRIC noise; especially China’s antics. Treasuries are as high as they can ever get; why can’t they silently start unloading a little at a time. I think market can digest about $1T per year without total collapse since Bernanke just proved it by quantitative easing. They can diversify enough in about 5-10 years without killing everybody. U.S. would be badly hurt, like ’70s, but the world won’t end.[/quote]
You might be right, but who’s going to read an article about a gradual tansition away from the dollar ?
July 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM in reply to: OT: India Joins Russia, China in Questioning U.S. Dollar Dominance #426475Participant[quote=bsrsharma]I don’t understand all this BRIC noise; especially China’s antics. Treasuries are as high as they can ever get; why can’t they silently start unloading a little at a time. I think market can digest about $1T per year without total collapse since Bernanke just proved it by quantitative easing. They can diversify enough in about 5-10 years without killing everybody. U.S. would be badly hurt, like ’70s, but the world won’t end.[/quote]
You might be right, but who’s going to read an article about a gradual tansition away from the dollar ?
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 AM in reply to: San Diego Home Sales about to be revised downward BIGTIME (89% to 6.5% increase in May) #423144Participant[quote=deadzone]SDR, did you flunk Econ 101?
If in fact “There is alot more demand than supply right now” then home prices would be rising in San Diego right now. That is clearly not happening. While everybody knows that supply is being artificially held back, obviously not enough to cause prices to rise. Bottom line, there is NOT more demand than supply. [/quote]
In areas and price segments where there are tens of offers on properties there certainly is excess demand relative to supply.
There are areas and price segments where this is the case and where there are actually price increases.
What some of these guys see on a daily basis today shows up about 2-3 months later in Dataquick and about 5-6 months later in Case-Shiller Index because of lags in reporting.
We saw this as we approached the peak in 2005. Aggregate Demand was down in 2004 (number of sales decreased) supply increased dramatically in 2004-2005, yet prices reported continue to rise through late 2005.
Either fundamentals of supply/demand economics were wrong at that point OR the measures of price used were lagging the actual market supply/demand.
I believe that the same thing is happening in reverse now.Arguments for a market bottom forming (at least in some areas) centers on supply/demand and affordability, while the direction of prices indicates otherwise.
Back in 2004-2005, arguments for a market bubble centered on supply/demand and affordability, while prices indicated otherwise … for a while.
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 AM in reply to: San Diego Home Sales about to be revised downward BIGTIME (89% to 6.5% increase in May) #423375Participant[quote=deadzone]SDR, did you flunk Econ 101?
If in fact “There is alot more demand than supply right now” then home prices would be rising in San Diego right now. That is clearly not happening. While everybody knows that supply is being artificially held back, obviously not enough to cause prices to rise. Bottom line, there is NOT more demand than supply. [/quote]
In areas and price segments where there are tens of offers on properties there certainly is excess demand relative to supply.
There are areas and price segments where this is the case and where there are actually price increases.
What some of these guys see on a daily basis today shows up about 2-3 months later in Dataquick and about 5-6 months later in Case-Shiller Index because of lags in reporting.
We saw this as we approached the peak in 2005. Aggregate Demand was down in 2004 (number of sales decreased) supply increased dramatically in 2004-2005, yet prices reported continue to rise through late 2005.
Either fundamentals of supply/demand economics were wrong at that point OR the measures of price used were lagging the actual market supply/demand.
I believe that the same thing is happening in reverse now.Arguments for a market bottom forming (at least in some areas) centers on supply/demand and affordability, while the direction of prices indicates otherwise.
Back in 2004-2005, arguments for a market bubble centered on supply/demand and affordability, while prices indicated otherwise … for a while.
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 AM in reply to: San Diego Home Sales about to be revised downward BIGTIME (89% to 6.5% increase in May) #423652Participant[quote=deadzone]SDR, did you flunk Econ 101?
If in fact “There is alot more demand than supply right now” then home prices would be rising in San Diego right now. That is clearly not happening. While everybody knows that supply is being artificially held back, obviously not enough to cause prices to rise. Bottom line, there is NOT more demand than supply. [/quote]
In areas and price segments where there are tens of offers on properties there certainly is excess demand relative to supply.
There are areas and price segments where this is the case and where there are actually price increases.
What some of these guys see on a daily basis today shows up about 2-3 months later in Dataquick and about 5-6 months later in Case-Shiller Index because of lags in reporting.
We saw this as we approached the peak in 2005. Aggregate Demand was down in 2004 (number of sales decreased) supply increased dramatically in 2004-2005, yet prices reported continue to rise through late 2005.
Either fundamentals of supply/demand economics were wrong at that point OR the measures of price used were lagging the actual market supply/demand.
I believe that the same thing is happening in reverse now.Arguments for a market bottom forming (at least in some areas) centers on supply/demand and affordability, while the direction of prices indicates otherwise.
Back in 2004-2005, arguments for a market bubble centered on supply/demand and affordability, while prices indicated otherwise … for a while.
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 AM in reply to: San Diego Home Sales about to be revised downward BIGTIME (89% to 6.5% increase in May) #423721Participant[quote=deadzone]SDR, did you flunk Econ 101?
If in fact “There is alot more demand than supply right now” then home prices would be rising in San Diego right now. That is clearly not happening. While everybody knows that supply is being artificially held back, obviously not enough to cause prices to rise. Bottom line, there is NOT more demand than supply. [/quote]
In areas and price segments where there are tens of offers on properties there certainly is excess demand relative to supply.
There are areas and price segments where this is the case and where there are actually price increases.
What some of these guys see on a daily basis today shows up about 2-3 months later in Dataquick and about 5-6 months later in Case-Shiller Index because of lags in reporting.
We saw this as we approached the peak in 2005. Aggregate Demand was down in 2004 (number of sales decreased) supply increased dramatically in 2004-2005, yet prices reported continue to rise through late 2005.
Either fundamentals of supply/demand economics were wrong at that point OR the measures of price used were lagging the actual market supply/demand.
I believe that the same thing is happening in reverse now.Arguments for a market bottom forming (at least in some areas) centers on supply/demand and affordability, while the direction of prices indicates otherwise.
Back in 2004-2005, arguments for a market bubble centered on supply/demand and affordability, while prices indicated otherwise … for a while.
July 1, 2009 at 9:23 AM in reply to: San Diego Home Sales about to be revised downward BIGTIME (89% to 6.5% increase in May) #423885Participant[quote=deadzone]SDR, did you flunk Econ 101?
If in fact “There is alot more demand than supply right now” then home prices would be rising in San Diego right now. That is clearly not happening. While everybody knows that supply is being artificially held back, obviously not enough to cause prices to rise. Bottom line, there is NOT more demand than supply. [/quote]
In areas and price segments where there are tens of offers on properties there certainly is excess demand relative to supply.
There are areas and price segments where this is the case and where there are actually price increases.
What some of these guys see on a daily basis today shows up about 2-3 months later in Dataquick and about 5-6 months later in Case-Shiller Index because of lags in reporting.
We saw this as we approached the peak in 2005. Aggregate Demand was down in 2004 (number of sales decreased) supply increased dramatically in 2004-2005, yet prices reported continue to rise through late 2005.
Either fundamentals of supply/demand economics were wrong at that point OR the measures of price used were lagging the actual market supply/demand.
I believe that the same thing is happening in reverse now.Arguments for a market bottom forming (at least in some areas) centers on supply/demand and affordability, while the direction of prices indicates otherwise.
Back in 2004-2005, arguments for a market bubble centered on supply/demand and affordability, while prices indicated otherwise … for a while.
Participant[quote=4plexowner]1. what about the fact that 25% of our workforce (Baby Boomers) are going to try to retire over the next ten years?
many of them will try to downsize by selling their houses
[/quote]Why is it that all demographic arguments focus on the baby boomers. What about the children of the boomers, who actually outnumber the boomer generation ?
The first part of this wave is in their early 30’s. While the size of the echo boomer generation is not large enough to solve the Social Security problems (which relies on a large number of workers per retiree) they are larger than the boomers and will impact many other parts of the economy and society.
Participant[quote=4plexowner]1. what about the fact that 25% of our workforce (Baby Boomers) are going to try to retire over the next ten years?
many of them will try to downsize by selling their houses
[/quote]Why is it that all demographic arguments focus on the baby boomers. What about the children of the boomers, who actually outnumber the boomer generation ?
The first part of this wave is in their early 30’s. While the size of the echo boomer generation is not large enough to solve the Social Security problems (which relies on a large number of workers per retiree) they are larger than the boomers and will impact many other parts of the economy and society.
Participant[quote=4plexowner]1. what about the fact that 25% of our workforce (Baby Boomers) are going to try to retire over the next ten years?
many of them will try to downsize by selling their houses
[/quote]Why is it that all demographic arguments focus on the baby boomers. What about the children of the boomers, who actually outnumber the boomer generation ?
The first part of this wave is in their early 30’s. While the size of the echo boomer generation is not large enough to solve the Social Security problems (which relies on a large number of workers per retiree) they are larger than the boomers and will impact many other parts of the economy and society.
-
AuthorPosts
