Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant4plex, I’ve followed a lot of Shiller’s work (on other subjects too) for several years now, and I agree that something happened around the time those CME housing futures based on his index first were launched.
It could be legal liability related to his role in the index that’s making him generally cautious, and anxious not to say clearly when he thinks house prices need to decline more than the PPT consensus. But I think it’s more than that. In the YouTube debate TG linked to here, Shiller is not so much trying to appear neutral on the outlook for future home prices as he is advocating a bigger role for government action to support house prices. He doesn’t have to do the second to avoid legal liability.
I think what’s happened to Shiller is that he became very tired of proposing, for 20 years, a lot of interesting new types of insurance, with no one picking them up. He probably began to realize that he could end his acadamic career with a pile of ideas, every last one of which was just collecting dust. Now that the housing futures are in place, he realizes he’s inside the tent with all the people who make things happen, and he desperately wants to make sure he’s not kicked out. He has lots of other ideas besides the housing futures that he wants to make happen.
To a significant extent, he’s been co-opted, and what he says has to be taken with big chunks of salt. Pity.
Patient renter in OC
Participant4plex, I’ve followed a lot of Shiller’s work (on other subjects too) for several years now, and I agree that something happened around the time those CME housing futures based on his index first were launched.
It could be legal liability related to his role in the index that’s making him generally cautious, and anxious not to say clearly when he thinks house prices need to decline more than the PPT consensus. But I think it’s more than that. In the YouTube debate TG linked to here, Shiller is not so much trying to appear neutral on the outlook for future home prices as he is advocating a bigger role for government action to support house prices. He doesn’t have to do the second to avoid legal liability.
I think what’s happened to Shiller is that he became very tired of proposing, for 20 years, a lot of interesting new types of insurance, with no one picking them up. He probably began to realize that he could end his acadamic career with a pile of ideas, every last one of which was just collecting dust. Now that the housing futures are in place, he realizes he’s inside the tent with all the people who make things happen, and he desperately wants to make sure he’s not kicked out. He has lots of other ideas besides the housing futures that he wants to make happen.
To a significant extent, he’s been co-opted, and what he says has to be taken with big chunks of salt. Pity.
Patient renter in OC
Participant4plex, I’ve followed a lot of Shiller’s work (on other subjects too) for several years now, and I agree that something happened around the time those CME housing futures based on his index first were launched.
It could be legal liability related to his role in the index that’s making him generally cautious, and anxious not to say clearly when he thinks house prices need to decline more than the PPT consensus. But I think it’s more than that. In the YouTube debate TG linked to here, Shiller is not so much trying to appear neutral on the outlook for future home prices as he is advocating a bigger role for government action to support house prices. He doesn’t have to do the second to avoid legal liability.
I think what’s happened to Shiller is that he became very tired of proposing, for 20 years, a lot of interesting new types of insurance, with no one picking them up. He probably began to realize that he could end his acadamic career with a pile of ideas, every last one of which was just collecting dust. Now that the housing futures are in place, he realizes he’s inside the tent with all the people who make things happen, and he desperately wants to make sure he’s not kicked out. He has lots of other ideas besides the housing futures that he wants to make happen.
To a significant extent, he’s been co-opted, and what he says has to be taken with big chunks of salt. Pity.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantHey mixx, when you first created this thread, you were almost resigned to finding an alternative to SD. Then you saw enough signs of price drops coming in SD that you thought you’d wait a little longer. I think that was April. What are your thoughts now?
I am going through a parallel process here in OC, but about 9 months behind you. I was resigned to Vancouver, WA or maybe Myrle Beach, SC or Athens, GA, and actually visited Austin, TX, but what I really want is just to be able to afford to stay where I am in OC. I still can’t quite afford it, but it may happen in the next year or two, with luck.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantHey mixx, when you first created this thread, you were almost resigned to finding an alternative to SD. Then you saw enough signs of price drops coming in SD that you thought you’d wait a little longer. I think that was April. What are your thoughts now?
I am going through a parallel process here in OC, but about 9 months behind you. I was resigned to Vancouver, WA or maybe Myrle Beach, SC or Athens, GA, and actually visited Austin, TX, but what I really want is just to be able to afford to stay where I am in OC. I still can’t quite afford it, but it may happen in the next year or two, with luck.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantHey mixx, when you first created this thread, you were almost resigned to finding an alternative to SD. Then you saw enough signs of price drops coming in SD that you thought you’d wait a little longer. I think that was April. What are your thoughts now?
I am going through a parallel process here in OC, but about 9 months behind you. I was resigned to Vancouver, WA or maybe Myrle Beach, SC or Athens, GA, and actually visited Austin, TX, but what I really want is just to be able to afford to stay where I am in OC. I still can’t quite afford it, but it may happen in the next year or two, with luck.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantHey mixx, when you first created this thread, you were almost resigned to finding an alternative to SD. Then you saw enough signs of price drops coming in SD that you thought you’d wait a little longer. I think that was April. What are your thoughts now?
I am going through a parallel process here in OC, but about 9 months behind you. I was resigned to Vancouver, WA or maybe Myrle Beach, SC or Athens, GA, and actually visited Austin, TX, but what I really want is just to be able to afford to stay where I am in OC. I still can’t quite afford it, but it may happen in the next year or two, with luck.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantHey mixx, when you first created this thread, you were almost resigned to finding an alternative to SD. Then you saw enough signs of price drops coming in SD that you thought you’d wait a little longer. I think that was April. What are your thoughts now?
I am going through a parallel process here in OC, but about 9 months behind you. I was resigned to Vancouver, WA or maybe Myrle Beach, SC or Athens, GA, and actually visited Austin, TX, but what I really want is just to be able to afford to stay where I am in OC. I still can’t quite afford it, but it may happen in the next year or two, with luck.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantMultipleProp, I am pissed with myself (is that called bitter?) for not having bought in 1996, when I could. I made a decision not to buy each year from 1996 through 2007 based on the idea that I couldn’t really afford to pay for the homes I wanted to live in. I could always afford to buy them if I assumed someone else would later pay a lot more. To me, that didn’t seem like a prudent basis for judging affordability.
To figure out how much I could afford, I worked out how much I earned, how much needed to be set aside for current expenses, future retirement and health care and other reasonable contingencies. What was left, added up over the length of the future earning career to which I was prepared to commit, was how much I decided I could afford for a home. This seems like a prudent basis for deciding how much I can afford.
Clearly, those who took on more risk did much better. I am disappointed with the results of my decision, but just as I can’t question the gains reaped by those who made riskier decisions, neither do they have any right to help from me or other taxpayers when their bets start to lose. Efforts to support prices are therefore offensive to me. It makes the whole game unfair, taking from those who choose less risk and giving to those who choose more risk.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantMultipleProp, I am pissed with myself (is that called bitter?) for not having bought in 1996, when I could. I made a decision not to buy each year from 1996 through 2007 based on the idea that I couldn’t really afford to pay for the homes I wanted to live in. I could always afford to buy them if I assumed someone else would later pay a lot more. To me, that didn’t seem like a prudent basis for judging affordability.
To figure out how much I could afford, I worked out how much I earned, how much needed to be set aside for current expenses, future retirement and health care and other reasonable contingencies. What was left, added up over the length of the future earning career to which I was prepared to commit, was how much I decided I could afford for a home. This seems like a prudent basis for deciding how much I can afford.
Clearly, those who took on more risk did much better. I am disappointed with the results of my decision, but just as I can’t question the gains reaped by those who made riskier decisions, neither do they have any right to help from me or other taxpayers when their bets start to lose. Efforts to support prices are therefore offensive to me. It makes the whole game unfair, taking from those who choose less risk and giving to those who choose more risk.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantMultipleProp, I am pissed with myself (is that called bitter?) for not having bought in 1996, when I could. I made a decision not to buy each year from 1996 through 2007 based on the idea that I couldn’t really afford to pay for the homes I wanted to live in. I could always afford to buy them if I assumed someone else would later pay a lot more. To me, that didn’t seem like a prudent basis for judging affordability.
To figure out how much I could afford, I worked out how much I earned, how much needed to be set aside for current expenses, future retirement and health care and other reasonable contingencies. What was left, added up over the length of the future earning career to which I was prepared to commit, was how much I decided I could afford for a home. This seems like a prudent basis for deciding how much I can afford.
Clearly, those who took on more risk did much better. I am disappointed with the results of my decision, but just as I can’t question the gains reaped by those who made riskier decisions, neither do they have any right to help from me or other taxpayers when their bets start to lose. Efforts to support prices are therefore offensive to me. It makes the whole game unfair, taking from those who choose less risk and giving to those who choose more risk.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantMultipleProp, I am pissed with myself (is that called bitter?) for not having bought in 1996, when I could. I made a decision not to buy each year from 1996 through 2007 based on the idea that I couldn’t really afford to pay for the homes I wanted to live in. I could always afford to buy them if I assumed someone else would later pay a lot more. To me, that didn’t seem like a prudent basis for judging affordability.
To figure out how much I could afford, I worked out how much I earned, how much needed to be set aside for current expenses, future retirement and health care and other reasonable contingencies. What was left, added up over the length of the future earning career to which I was prepared to commit, was how much I decided I could afford for a home. This seems like a prudent basis for deciding how much I can afford.
Clearly, those who took on more risk did much better. I am disappointed with the results of my decision, but just as I can’t question the gains reaped by those who made riskier decisions, neither do they have any right to help from me or other taxpayers when their bets start to lose. Efforts to support prices are therefore offensive to me. It makes the whole game unfair, taking from those who choose less risk and giving to those who choose more risk.
Patient renter in OC
ParticipantMultipleProp, I am pissed with myself (is that called bitter?) for not having bought in 1996, when I could. I made a decision not to buy each year from 1996 through 2007 based on the idea that I couldn’t really afford to pay for the homes I wanted to live in. I could always afford to buy them if I assumed someone else would later pay a lot more. To me, that didn’t seem like a prudent basis for judging affordability.
To figure out how much I could afford, I worked out how much I earned, how much needed to be set aside for current expenses, future retirement and health care and other reasonable contingencies. What was left, added up over the length of the future earning career to which I was prepared to commit, was how much I decided I could afford for a home. This seems like a prudent basis for deciding how much I can afford.
Clearly, those who took on more risk did much better. I am disappointed with the results of my decision, but just as I can’t question the gains reaped by those who made riskier decisions, neither do they have any right to help from me or other taxpayers when their bets start to lose. Efforts to support prices are therefore offensive to me. It makes the whole game unfair, taking from those who choose less risk and giving to those who choose more risk.
Patient renter in OC
Participantbrian, I hear you. I agree that Shiller is owed some respect because of all he said when he was a voice in the wilderness, but I think he’s sdefinitely pulling his punches now. I don’t think what he says is exactly the same as what he thinks any more. He’s become an actor in the play, modifying his message to get the results he wants, not just transmitting everything he knows and trusting that someone else will act correctly on it.
He’s still really smart, and we all owe him one, and he will doubtless produce useful things in the future, but right now he’s hitched his carriage to the PPT horse.
Patient renter in OC
-
AuthorPosts
