[patientrenter]

4826, I don’t know any details about Aussie RE, but I have kept vaguely aware of its movements for the last 20-30 years.

My definite impression is that Australia went into a bubble every bit as inflated as So Cal, and maybe even more in some places.

If I were you, I’d look for a good long-term house price series for Australia, like our own Case-Shiller. After looking at it, and comparing to something like per-capita GDP, you’ll have a better idea where current Australian prices are in the up-and-down cycle, relative to the last 20-40 years.

Patience and logic!

[patientrenter]

4826, I don’t know any details about Aussie RE, but I have kept vaguely aware of its movements for the last 20-30 years.

My definite impression is that Australia went into a bubble every bit as inflated as So Cal, and maybe even more in some places.

If I were you, I’d look for a good long-term house price series for Australia, like our own Case-Shiller. After looking at it, and comparing to something like per-capita GDP, you’ll have a better idea where current Australian prices are in the up-and-down cycle, relative to the last 20-40 years.

Patience and logic!

[patientrenter]

4826, I don’t know any details about Aussie RE, but I have kept vaguely aware of its movements for the last 20-30 years.

My definite impression is that Australia went into a bubble every bit as inflated as So Cal, and maybe even more in some places.

If I were you, I’d look for a good long-term house price series for Australia, like our own Case-Shiller. After looking at it, and comparing to something like per-capita GDP, you’ll have a better idea where current Australian prices are in the up-and-down cycle, relative to the last 20-40 years.

Patience and logic!

[patientrenter]

4826, I don’t know any details about Aussie RE, but I have kept vaguely aware of its movements for the last 20-30 years.

My definite impression is that Australia went into a bubble every bit as inflated as So Cal, and maybe even more in some places.

If I were you, I’d look for a good long-term house price series for Australia, like our own Case-Shiller. After looking at it, and comparing to something like per-capita GDP, you’ll have a better idea where current Australian prices are in the up-and-down cycle, relative to the last 20-40 years.

Patience and logic!

[patientrenter]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Yikes, if this is even half true it’s scary as hell. This story reads more like an article from The Onion than anything else.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Nothing surprises me any more. The main goal of a lot of the activity going on is to keep home prices high, and to keep as as much of that inflated value in the pockets of existing homeowners, either by supporting the prices, or repudiating the debt used to buy the homes, or both. If someone creates a process that does that, and offers even a mildly plausible argument for its reasonability, fairness, and economic value, it will be quickly accepted. 90% of the population will accept the specious arguments they are fed and, at this point, the main actors feel no embarrassment or fear before the remaining 10%. It’s all snouts into the trough now, regardless of who’s looking.

[patientrenter]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Yikes, if this is even half true it’s scary as hell. This story reads more like an article from The Onion than anything else.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Nothing surprises me any more. The main goal of a lot of the activity going on is to keep home prices high, and to keep as as much of that inflated value in the pockets of existing homeowners, either by supporting the prices, or repudiating the debt used to buy the homes, or both. If someone creates a process that does that, and offers even a mildly plausible argument for its reasonability, fairness, and economic value, it will be quickly accepted. 90% of the population will accept the specious arguments they are fed and, at this point, the main actors feel no embarrassment or fear before the remaining 10%. It’s all snouts into the trough now, regardless of who’s looking.

[patientrenter]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Yikes, if this is even half true it’s scary as hell. This story reads more like an article from The Onion than anything else.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Nothing surprises me any more. The main goal of a lot of the activity going on is to keep home prices high, and to keep as as much of that inflated value in the pockets of existing homeowners, either by supporting the prices, or repudiating the debt used to buy the homes, or both. If someone creates a process that does that, and offers even a mildly plausible argument for its reasonability, fairness, and economic value, it will be quickly accepted. 90% of the population will accept the specious arguments they are fed and, at this point, the main actors feel no embarrassment or fear before the remaining 10%. It’s all snouts into the trough now, regardless of who’s looking.

[patientrenter]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Yikes, if this is even half true it’s scary as hell. This story reads more like an article from The Onion than anything else.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Nothing surprises me any more. The main goal of a lot of the activity going on is to keep home prices high, and to keep as as much of that inflated value in the pockets of existing homeowners, either by supporting the prices, or repudiating the debt used to buy the homes, or both. If someone creates a process that does that, and offers even a mildly plausible argument for its reasonability, fairness, and economic value, it will be quickly accepted. 90% of the population will accept the specious arguments they are fed and, at this point, the main actors feel no embarrassment or fear before the remaining 10%. It’s all snouts into the trough now, regardless of who’s looking.

[patientrenter]

[quote=XBoxBoy]Yikes, if this is even half true it’s scary as hell. This story reads more like an article from The Onion than anything else.

XBoxBoy[/quote]

Nothing surprises me any more. The main goal of a lot of the activity going on is to keep home prices high, and to keep as as much of that inflated value in the pockets of existing homeowners, either by supporting the prices, or repudiating the debt used to buy the homes, or both. If someone creates a process that does that, and offers even a mildly plausible argument for its reasonability, fairness, and economic value, it will be quickly accepted. 90% of the population will accept the specious arguments they are fed and, at this point, the main actors feel no embarrassment or fear before the remaining 10%. It’s all snouts into the trough now, regardless of who’s looking.

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]If we actually had a free market all of these homes would have gone to foreclosure, prices would have crashed and housing would become affordable. Unfortunately that is all theoretical because we all know that we would have a collapse of the financial system and our society would have some very serious problems in that scenario.[/quote]

SD R, you are so right about everything, except….

If prices were allowed to crash, there would not have to be a collapse in our financial system. For example, if the govt identified the 60% strongest banks and other finl insitutions, and supported them, and let the rest go to the wall, we would do fine. (Have to guarantee 90-99% of the obligations of the ones that go to the wall during the unwind.)

Yes, a lot of money would have to be printed quickly, but isn’t that what’s been happening slowly for some time now, with no end in sight, and endless moral hazards and unfairnesses and economic inefficiencies in the name of postponing pain?

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]If we actually had a free market all of these homes would have gone to foreclosure, prices would have crashed and housing would become affordable. Unfortunately that is all theoretical because we all know that we would have a collapse of the financial system and our society would have some very serious problems in that scenario.[/quote]

SD R, you are so right about everything, except….

If prices were allowed to crash, there would not have to be a collapse in our financial system. For example, if the govt identified the 60% strongest banks and other finl insitutions, and supported them, and let the rest go to the wall, we would do fine. (Have to guarantee 90-99% of the obligations of the ones that go to the wall during the unwind.)

Yes, a lot of money would have to be printed quickly, but isn’t that what’s been happening slowly for some time now, with no end in sight, and endless moral hazards and unfairnesses and economic inefficiencies in the name of postponing pain?

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]If we actually had a free market all of these homes would have gone to foreclosure, prices would have crashed and housing would become affordable. Unfortunately that is all theoretical because we all know that we would have a collapse of the financial system and our society would have some very serious problems in that scenario.[/quote]

SD R, you are so right about everything, except….

If prices were allowed to crash, there would not have to be a collapse in our financial system. For example, if the govt identified the 60% strongest banks and other finl insitutions, and supported them, and let the rest go to the wall, we would do fine. (Have to guarantee 90-99% of the obligations of the ones that go to the wall during the unwind.)

Yes, a lot of money would have to be printed quickly, but isn’t that what’s been happening slowly for some time now, with no end in sight, and endless moral hazards and unfairnesses and economic inefficiencies in the name of postponing pain?

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]If we actually had a free market all of these homes would have gone to foreclosure, prices would have crashed and housing would become affordable. Unfortunately that is all theoretical because we all know that we would have a collapse of the financial system and our society would have some very serious problems in that scenario.[/quote]

SD R, you are so right about everything, except….

If prices were allowed to crash, there would not have to be a collapse in our financial system. For example, if the govt identified the 60% strongest banks and other finl insitutions, and supported them, and let the rest go to the wall, we would do fine. (Have to guarantee 90-99% of the obligations of the ones that go to the wall during the unwind.)

Yes, a lot of money would have to be printed quickly, but isn’t that what’s been happening slowly for some time now, with no end in sight, and endless moral hazards and unfairnesses and economic inefficiencies in the name of postponing pain?

[patientrenter]

[quote=SD Realtor]If we actually had a free market all of these homes would have gone to foreclosure, prices would have crashed and housing would become affordable. Unfortunately that is all theoretical because we all know that we would have a collapse of the financial system and our society would have some very serious problems in that scenario.[/quote]

SD R, you are so right about everything, except….

If prices were allowed to crash, there would not have to be a collapse in our financial system. For example, if the govt identified the 60% strongest banks and other finl insitutions, and supported them, and let the rest go to the wall, we would do fine. (Have to guarantee 90-99% of the obligations of the ones that go to the wall during the unwind.)

Yes, a lot of money would have to be printed quickly, but isn’t that what’s been happening slowly for some time now, with no end in sight, and endless moral hazards and unfairnesses and economic inefficiencies in the name of postponing pain?

[patientrenter]

[quote=fredo4][quote=ralphfurley]

CA voters are idiots. They want everything and don’t want to pay for it. The ballot measures that passed last election are proof of that.[/quote]

I agree with Mr. Furley, I gave up on California voters after Arnold’s ballot initiatives failed so miserably a few years ago. If the people of this state are that stupid, however unfortunate it is for me, they get what they deserve. [/quote]

Well, they may be smarter than you give them credit for. Most of those voters are not too bright, or not too hardworking, or not too well educated or trained. For them, getting a bigger piece of a smaller pie may actually make sense.

In the long run, we’ll all be better off if we do what’s most productive, and Arnold’s initiatives were in the right direction for that, but the payoff for the less productive people in society might not be for 20-30 years, or never for some.

[Author]

Posts