Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participantsocratt, it’s probably not a great idea if we all cut our spending back to near zero. But I agree that we really could have used a serious change in what we spend our time doing, and many would have accepted and even welcomed that. However, the folks steering the economic ship are doing everything they can to minimize any change.
It’s a bit like those few months after 9/11, when people would have accepted making common sacrifices in efforts to make us safer. Instead, most people were encouraged to spend like nothing happened.
Clearly, we cannot forever keep consuming material goods like we we have. With China and India on the road to match our consumption, we must all consume less in material goods. That’s OK in most respects. I know I am most happy with better quality, not more quantity, in almost all aspects of my material consumption.
That means we need to continue expanding our ability to entertain and enrich each other. And nurture a small but very important sector of our economy devoted to advancing our technology. I am not much interested in mandatory restrictions on the hours that people can work, but I do think that 200 years from now people will look back at us and consider us deprived of recreational time. We should consider cultural changes that make less time at work more acceptable. (But full-time retirements will probably have to be cut back. We can’t have a younger generation doing nothing but taking care of the baby boomers as they play golf and need diaper changes.)
Participantsocratt, it’s probably not a great idea if we all cut our spending back to near zero. But I agree that we really could have used a serious change in what we spend our time doing, and many would have accepted and even welcomed that. However, the folks steering the economic ship are doing everything they can to minimize any change.
It’s a bit like those few months after 9/11, when people would have accepted making common sacrifices in efforts to make us safer. Instead, most people were encouraged to spend like nothing happened.
Clearly, we cannot forever keep consuming material goods like we we have. With China and India on the road to match our consumption, we must all consume less in material goods. That’s OK in most respects. I know I am most happy with better quality, not more quantity, in almost all aspects of my material consumption.
That means we need to continue expanding our ability to entertain and enrich each other. And nurture a small but very important sector of our economy devoted to advancing our technology. I am not much interested in mandatory restrictions on the hours that people can work, but I do think that 200 years from now people will look back at us and consider us deprived of recreational time. We should consider cultural changes that make less time at work more acceptable. (But full-time retirements will probably have to be cut back. We can’t have a younger generation doing nothing but taking care of the baby boomers as they play golf and need diaper changes.)
Participantsocratt, it’s probably not a great idea if we all cut our spending back to near zero. But I agree that we really could have used a serious change in what we spend our time doing, and many would have accepted and even welcomed that. However, the folks steering the economic ship are doing everything they can to minimize any change.
It’s a bit like those few months after 9/11, when people would have accepted making common sacrifices in efforts to make us safer. Instead, most people were encouraged to spend like nothing happened.
Clearly, we cannot forever keep consuming material goods like we we have. With China and India on the road to match our consumption, we must all consume less in material goods. That’s OK in most respects. I know I am most happy with better quality, not more quantity, in almost all aspects of my material consumption.
That means we need to continue expanding our ability to entertain and enrich each other. And nurture a small but very important sector of our economy devoted to advancing our technology. I am not much interested in mandatory restrictions on the hours that people can work, but I do think that 200 years from now people will look back at us and consider us deprived of recreational time. We should consider cultural changes that make less time at work more acceptable. (But full-time retirements will probably have to be cut back. We can’t have a younger generation doing nothing but taking care of the baby boomers as they play golf and need diaper changes.)
Participant[quote=DWCAP]despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”
I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards. [/quote]
Yes, the politically-motivated double-talk around this issue truly is amazing, DWCAP. Barney Frank is one of the whales in this sea of financial perfidy, and yet has escaped full accountability from his own side. Greenspan at least hasn’t got away so cleanly on the other side.
On this political shading of the issues… Years ago, I decided that political partisans added little value to most discussions, because they were more concerned about getting to a certain pre-ordained result than in actually figuring out how things work. Discussions had more in common with two-sided football games than shared intellectual discovery. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough evidence since then to change my mind.
Republicans: Democrats are wrong!
Democrats: Republicans are wrong!
Repeat ad infinitum…..
Participant[quote=DWCAP]despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”
I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards. [/quote]
Yes, the politically-motivated double-talk around this issue truly is amazing, DWCAP. Barney Frank is one of the whales in this sea of financial perfidy, and yet has escaped full accountability from his own side. Greenspan at least hasn’t got away so cleanly on the other side.
On this political shading of the issues… Years ago, I decided that political partisans added little value to most discussions, because they were more concerned about getting to a certain pre-ordained result than in actually figuring out how things work. Discussions had more in common with two-sided football games than shared intellectual discovery. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough evidence since then to change my mind.
Republicans: Democrats are wrong!
Democrats: Republicans are wrong!
Repeat ad infinitum…..
Participant[quote=DWCAP]despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”
I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards. [/quote]
Yes, the politically-motivated double-talk around this issue truly is amazing, DWCAP. Barney Frank is one of the whales in this sea of financial perfidy, and yet has escaped full accountability from his own side. Greenspan at least hasn’t got away so cleanly on the other side.
On this political shading of the issues… Years ago, I decided that political partisans added little value to most discussions, because they were more concerned about getting to a certain pre-ordained result than in actually figuring out how things work. Discussions had more in common with two-sided football games than shared intellectual discovery. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough evidence since then to change my mind.
Republicans: Democrats are wrong!
Democrats: Republicans are wrong!
Repeat ad infinitum…..
Participant[quote=DWCAP]despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”
I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards. [/quote]
Yes, the politically-motivated double-talk around this issue truly is amazing, DWCAP. Barney Frank is one of the whales in this sea of financial perfidy, and yet has escaped full accountability from his own side. Greenspan at least hasn’t got away so cleanly on the other side.
On this political shading of the issues… Years ago, I decided that political partisans added little value to most discussions, because they were more concerned about getting to a certain pre-ordained result than in actually figuring out how things work. Discussions had more in common with two-sided football games than shared intellectual discovery. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough evidence since then to change my mind.
Republicans: Democrats are wrong!
Democrats: Republicans are wrong!
Repeat ad infinitum…..
Participant[quote=DWCAP]despite the fact that that piece is obviously a smear campain against democrats, and just happens to leave out all the BS of the republicans (ie Bush touting the homeownership rate increases as a good thing that HE did); you are right that it does bring up some interesting points. So many chances to avoid this crap, and yet “no one saw it coming!”
I would just love for someone to invite Frank onto their show, play that clip of him saying they are fundamently sound and even if they are not, it isnt the GOV problem, and see what he says. The political “doublt talk” around this issue is just astounding, even from Washington standards. [/quote]
Yes, the politically-motivated double-talk around this issue truly is amazing, DWCAP. Barney Frank is one of the whales in this sea of financial perfidy, and yet has escaped full accountability from his own side. Greenspan at least hasn’t got away so cleanly on the other side.
On this political shading of the issues… Years ago, I decided that political partisans added little value to most discussions, because they were more concerned about getting to a certain pre-ordained result than in actually figuring out how things work. Discussions had more in common with two-sided football games than shared intellectual discovery. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough evidence since then to change my mind.
Republicans: Democrats are wrong!
Democrats: Republicans are wrong!
Repeat ad infinitum…..
Participant[quote=flu]
Anyway, it’s irrelevant of what folks I think or other folks think what home prices will/won’t go to.
I have a target range that I’m willing and able to afford a home that i want for my next purpose, game on. Otherwise, pass. I’m not going to wait for the magic “bottom” because who knows where that will end up or how long. I could be dead by then..
[/quote]I too have a price range at which I am happy to pull the trigger. But the real estate cycle is nothing more than a gradual change in the numbers of people on either side of moving price barriers. So I don’t think that it’s a static game. As time goes on, more people will move their price triggers down, and fewer people will remain at the higher price points. Same happened on the way up. I wouldn’t base my estimates of the bottom of the market on my own personal tiggers.
Participant[quote=flu]
Anyway, it’s irrelevant of what folks I think or other folks think what home prices will/won’t go to.
I have a target range that I’m willing and able to afford a home that i want for my next purpose, game on. Otherwise, pass. I’m not going to wait for the magic “bottom” because who knows where that will end up or how long. I could be dead by then..
[/quote]I too have a price range at which I am happy to pull the trigger. But the real estate cycle is nothing more than a gradual change in the numbers of people on either side of moving price barriers. So I don’t think that it’s a static game. As time goes on, more people will move their price triggers down, and fewer people will remain at the higher price points. Same happened on the way up. I wouldn’t base my estimates of the bottom of the market on my own personal tiggers.
Participant[quote=flu]
Anyway, it’s irrelevant of what folks I think or other folks think what home prices will/won’t go to.
I have a target range that I’m willing and able to afford a home that i want for my next purpose, game on. Otherwise, pass. I’m not going to wait for the magic “bottom” because who knows where that will end up or how long. I could be dead by then..
[/quote]I too have a price range at which I am happy to pull the trigger. But the real estate cycle is nothing more than a gradual change in the numbers of people on either side of moving price barriers. So I don’t think that it’s a static game. As time goes on, more people will move their price triggers down, and fewer people will remain at the higher price points. Same happened on the way up. I wouldn’t base my estimates of the bottom of the market on my own personal tiggers.
Participant[quote=flu]
Anyway, it’s irrelevant of what folks I think or other folks think what home prices will/won’t go to.
I have a target range that I’m willing and able to afford a home that i want for my next purpose, game on. Otherwise, pass. I’m not going to wait for the magic “bottom” because who knows where that will end up or how long. I could be dead by then..
[/quote]I too have a price range at which I am happy to pull the trigger. But the real estate cycle is nothing more than a gradual change in the numbers of people on either side of moving price barriers. So I don’t think that it’s a static game. As time goes on, more people will move their price triggers down, and fewer people will remain at the higher price points. Same happened on the way up. I wouldn’t base my estimates of the bottom of the market on my own personal tiggers.
Participant[quote=flu]
Anyway, it’s irrelevant of what folks I think or other folks think what home prices will/won’t go to.
I have a target range that I’m willing and able to afford a home that i want for my next purpose, game on. Otherwise, pass. I’m not going to wait for the magic “bottom” because who knows where that will end up or how long. I could be dead by then..
[/quote]I too have a price range at which I am happy to pull the trigger. But the real estate cycle is nothing more than a gradual change in the numbers of people on either side of moving price barriers. So I don’t think that it’s a static game. As time goes on, more people will move their price triggers down, and fewer people will remain at the higher price points. Same happened on the way up. I wouldn’t base my estimates of the bottom of the market on my own personal tiggers.
ParticipantSounds like there’s a lot of emotion on this issue, so I’ll just drop in on this thread and drop out.
The notion that 50% off peak prices is a baseline, not a nadir, isn’t so far-fetched. I always scratch my head when I see fellow Piggs say that they expect the market to bottom at the price level that prevailed some time between 2000 and 2003. Sure, that could happen, but real estate is very cyclical, and the bottom of the last cycle was not then – it was 1996 or so.
In my own attempts to ballpark what home prices in So Cal might do as they reach bottom in the next few years, I:
1. Start with prices as of the bottom of the last cycle – 1996
2. Add some inflation. You can argue over the amount, but it’s not worth refining too much, so I just add about 40-60%, depending on my mood.
3. Subtract some for the extra severity of this downturn. This is a pure guess. Your guess is as good as mine (unless it’s different!)
4. Add some for the massive government efforts to maintain high home prices in this latest downturn. Who knows?
Because the last 2 are pure guesses, I tend to not do any explicit calculation for them, and just assume that in some hard-hit areas, prices will get in the neighborhood of the 1996 inflation-adjusted level and maybe lower, and in some sheltered areas, prices could stay higher by a significant %.
How does all that relate to the discussion about 50% off peak? Given that home prices at their peak were perhaps 4-6 times what they were in 1996, I see 50% off peak as being near the high end of my expected price range at the bottom this time.
-
AuthorPosts
