Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, in the typical real estate resale transaction there are about 30 to 40 people involved who are compensated in some way. Then the new homeowner will typically spend money on paint, flooring, appliances, furniture, landscaping and numerous other improvements. Saying the the resale of exisitng houses do nothing for GDP translates to not understanding what really occurs.[/quote]Not nothing, but maybe 10 to 15% of new home construction. What, maybe 10 pts on a typical sale? 6% to you guys, maybe a couple for the lender, maybe a couple more for add on crap, title insurance, the fedex guy always gets his in there somewhere.
Compared to 60 to 90% or more for new construction.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, in the typical real estate resale transaction there are about 30 to 40 people involved who are compensated in some way. Then the new homeowner will typically spend money on paint, flooring, appliances, furniture, landscaping and numerous other improvements. Saying the the resale of exisitng houses do nothing for GDP translates to not understanding what really occurs.[/quote]Not nothing, but maybe 10 to 15% of new home construction. What, maybe 10 pts on a typical sale? 6% to you guys, maybe a couple for the lender, maybe a couple more for add on crap, title insurance, the fedex guy always gets his in there somewhere.
Compared to 60 to 90% or more for new construction.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]
BTW, in the typical real estate resale transaction there are about 30 to 40 people involved who are compensated in some way. Then the new homeowner will typically spend money on paint, flooring, appliances, furniture, landscaping and numerous other improvements. Saying the the resale of exisitng houses do nothing for GDP translates to not understanding what really occurs.[/quote]Not nothing, but maybe 10 to 15% of new home construction. What, maybe 10 pts on a typical sale? 6% to you guys, maybe a couple for the lender, maybe a couple more for add on crap, title insurance, the fedex guy always gets his in there somewhere.
Compared to 60 to 90% or more for new construction.
Participant[quote=briansd1]We need to increase housing starts in order to stimulate economic growth. The resale of existing house does nothing for GDP.
But how to encourage building without price appreciation? Builders need access to cheaper land, building materials and contract labor.
Interesting predicament we’re in.[/quote]
You’re right that building homes is just about the best economic stimulus. But there’s no reason to increase housing starts until there is a shortage of housing. There isn’t. And nationally, there won’t be for at least a couple years. There may be geographic pockets that need more houses built. San Diego certainly doesn’t appear to be one of them. Some areas won’t need more homes for close to a decade.
Encouraging building for building sake is like building bridges to nowhere.
Participant[quote=briansd1]We need to increase housing starts in order to stimulate economic growth. The resale of existing house does nothing for GDP.
But how to encourage building without price appreciation? Builders need access to cheaper land, building materials and contract labor.
Interesting predicament we’re in.[/quote]
You’re right that building homes is just about the best economic stimulus. But there’s no reason to increase housing starts until there is a shortage of housing. There isn’t. And nationally, there won’t be for at least a couple years. There may be geographic pockets that need more houses built. San Diego certainly doesn’t appear to be one of them. Some areas won’t need more homes for close to a decade.
Encouraging building for building sake is like building bridges to nowhere.
Participant[quote=briansd1]We need to increase housing starts in order to stimulate economic growth. The resale of existing house does nothing for GDP.
But how to encourage building without price appreciation? Builders need access to cheaper land, building materials and contract labor.
Interesting predicament we’re in.[/quote]
You’re right that building homes is just about the best economic stimulus. But there’s no reason to increase housing starts until there is a shortage of housing. There isn’t. And nationally, there won’t be for at least a couple years. There may be geographic pockets that need more houses built. San Diego certainly doesn’t appear to be one of them. Some areas won’t need more homes for close to a decade.
Encouraging building for building sake is like building bridges to nowhere.
Participant[quote=briansd1]We need to increase housing starts in order to stimulate economic growth. The resale of existing house does nothing for GDP.
But how to encourage building without price appreciation? Builders need access to cheaper land, building materials and contract labor.
Interesting predicament we’re in.[/quote]
You’re right that building homes is just about the best economic stimulus. But there’s no reason to increase housing starts until there is a shortage of housing. There isn’t. And nationally, there won’t be for at least a couple years. There may be geographic pockets that need more houses built. San Diego certainly doesn’t appear to be one of them. Some areas won’t need more homes for close to a decade.
Encouraging building for building sake is like building bridges to nowhere.
Participant[quote=briansd1]We need to increase housing starts in order to stimulate economic growth. The resale of existing house does nothing for GDP.
But how to encourage building without price appreciation? Builders need access to cheaper land, building materials and contract labor.
Interesting predicament we’re in.[/quote]
You’re right that building homes is just about the best economic stimulus. But there’s no reason to increase housing starts until there is a shortage of housing. There isn’t. And nationally, there won’t be for at least a couple years. There may be geographic pockets that need more houses built. San Diego certainly doesn’t appear to be one of them. Some areas won’t need more homes for close to a decade.
Encouraging building for building sake is like building bridges to nowhere.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Of course, contracts come before discretionary spending. But I don’t think that it’s fair to cut services to cover the pension shortfalls.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways without raising revenues.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Of course, contracts come before discretionary spending. But I don’t think that it’s fair to cut services to cover the pension shortfalls.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways without raising revenues.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Of course, contracts come before discretionary spending. But I don’t think that it’s fair to cut services to cover the pension shortfalls.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways without raising revenues.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Of course, contracts come before discretionary spending. But I don’t think that it’s fair to cut services to cover the pension shortfalls.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways without raising revenues.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Of course, contracts come before discretionary spending. But I don’t think that it’s fair to cut services to cover the pension shortfalls.[/quote]
You can’t have it both ways without raising revenues.
ParticipantWe’re going all different directions here, but I think I can address them each one at a time.
[quote=briansd1]Ok, SK, if we assume that Wall Street caused our problems, let’s find a way to tax them and make them pay.
[/quote]I’m not sure who the “we” is that should find a way to tax them and make them pay. The government doesn’t usually reimburse people for bad investment decisions. There probably are viable tort claims that should be pursued, some already have been.
[quote=briansd1]So in that case, we all are “owed” something. So whatever amount is “recovered” through taxation should go to the general fund, not the public pensions. [/quote]
I’m not sure that we’re all owed anything, other than criminal prosecutions. Given the influence of the financial sector on both parties in Washington, that seems unlikely. Some might be. See tort claim issue above. Additionally, the losses didn’t occur within state or municipality accounts, they occurred within pension trusts. “Recovery through taxation” (whatever that means) would go to the states or municipalities, not pension trusts, except to the extent those additional taxes are used to fund those pensions.
[quote=briansd1]I don’t see why the public pension funds should be made whole to their peak values when everybody else suffers. [/quote]
The public pensions should be made whole the same reason a private company has a legal responsibilty to fully fund its contractual pension obligations. It has nothing to do with restoring them to their peak. Just to restoring them to actuarialy fully funded. The alternative to fully fund those obligations is bankruptcy. You can argue that the contracts should never have been agreed to. But they were. And where the pension obligations are in the list of creditor priority both at the state and municipal level, they will be funded. There is no choice.
[quote=briansd1]Now if the public pensions funds can successfully sue Wall Street to recover money, then all the better for them.[/quote]
They may be able to. It has already started.
[quote=briansd1]If you look at the Maddoff lawsuits, the investors who “lost money”, are only entitled to the capital they contributed, not the value of their portfolios. If they withdrew any of their gains, they are having to pay them back.[/quote]
Maddoff is not currently relevant because that’s a federal bankruptcy issue. There are no state or municipal pension funds in bankruptcy.
-
AuthorPosts
