Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participantre
Just because prices in certain areas are lower than others that does not make them a good deal. Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee and Atlanta are NOT booming.
=shrug= All I can say is that is not what I’m experiencing and seeing. And sure just because prices are lower in those areas than in California doesn’t mean that it is a good deal. Ultimately it comes down to rate of return and cash flow. Most of the properties I see there cash flow and are giving about a 30% return. And true there is a lot less California money nowadays flowing around, but those are the places I see them flowing to.
Participantohio
It is true that Ohio and the rustbelt in general has a lot of foreclosures. However, Ohio has had a lot of foreclosures for a long time and it is nothing new. The foreclosures are due to losses in the auto industry and are not attributed to the high price of housing.
However, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee Atlanta are seeing booms right now. Other states are seeing low to medium growth, not price declines (except of course for the bubble areas and rustbelt area).
Real estate is very very local. Not everything goes up at the same time and not everything goes down at the same time. Savvy real estate investors can use that fact in order to diversify their holdings and create more money.
Participantohio
It is true that Ohio and the rustbelt in general has a lot of foreclosures. However, Ohio has had a lot of foreclosures for a long time and it is nothing new. The foreclosures are due to losses in the auto industry and are not attributed to the high price of housing.
However, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee Atlanta are seeing booms right now. Other states are seeing low to medium growth, not price declines (except of course for the bubble areas and rustbelt area).
Real estate is very very local. Not everything goes up at the same time and not everything goes down at the same time. Savvy real estate investors can use that fact in order to diversify their holdings and create more money.
Participantnational
Perhaps we should consider that this poll probably considered the entire United States, as opposed to a small little area in San Diego.
There were a lot of areas in the U.S. that did not rise as high as San Diego and the bubble areas and so they could hardly be blamed for believing in real estate.
Now if that poll was restricted to the bubble areas, then it would be alarming.
Participantnational
Perhaps we should consider that this poll probably considered the entire United States, as opposed to a small little area in San Diego.
There were a lot of areas in the U.S. that did not rise as high as San Diego and the bubble areas and so they could hardly be blamed for believing in real estate.
Now if that poll was restricted to the bubble areas, then it would be alarming.
Participantills
nancy, cyphire – whether the current gov’t is good, corrupt, morally reprehensible, bad, incompetent, visionary, or run by Rich, the problem is that it spends money BADLY and I do not recommend giving it more. It doesn’t matter if Bush/Clinton/Obama ran the gov’t.
(nancy, please note the lack of name-calling in this post. some reciprocity would be appreciated).
Participantills
nancy, cyphire – whether the current gov’t is good, corrupt, morally reprehensible, bad, incompetent, visionary, or run by Rich, the problem is that it spends money BADLY and I do not recommend giving it more. It doesn’t matter if Bush/Clinton/Obama ran the gov’t.
(nancy, please note the lack of name-calling in this post. some reciprocity would be appreciated).
Participanthi, nancy!
So, ok, I advocate NOT giving the gov’t more money because it will not spend it well. And your response is that the “neocons” will waste the money for stupid things like war in Iraq.
So doesn’t your response actually reinforce my statement?
Just a thought.
Participanthi, nancy!
So, ok, I advocate NOT giving the gov’t more money because it will not spend it well. And your response is that the “neocons” will waste the money for stupid things like war in Iraq.
So doesn’t your response actually reinforce my statement?
Just a thought.
Participantslippery slope
Did you want to do away with “government” just like Rwanda? Why don’t you just go to Rwanda or the former Afghanistan where tribal warloards ruled the day?
(in debate, this is known as the straw man argument, where instead of arguing the issue, a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation is given. this is generally seen as a weak response.)
I didn’t advocate doing away with government. I just believe in not giving it more money, for the reasons outlined above.
Participantslippery slope
Did you want to do away with “government” just like Rwanda? Why don’t you just go to Rwanda or the former Afghanistan where tribal warloards ruled the day?
(in debate, this is known as the straw man argument, where instead of arguing the issue, a distortion, exaggeration, or misrepresentation is given. this is generally seen as a weak response.)
I didn’t advocate doing away with government. I just believe in not giving it more money, for the reasons outlined above.
Participantlabels
cyphire, I wouldn’t presume to call you a bleeding heart liberal. I’m not a name-caller. I’m not powayseller (ouch). 🙂
Certainly we can agree that there is waste in both government and within businesses. However, businesses have a built-in mechanism for minimizing waste – competition and profit. There is little to no pressure within the government to do the same.
There is always that justification that if we give more money to the government, it can do so many things – the job training, feeding the hungry, and all that. But at the end of it, who are you giving the money to? The politicians, the bureaucrats, the people who have no desire to actually solve the problems.
In fact, I like your model better. We could use more people like you. But with all the job training, the school programs, did you notice how well it works without the government? How things actually got done? How much more effective you were?
I find that things usually work a lot better when the government leaves us alone. I’m fairly sure you’ll agree with that.
Participantlabels
cyphire, I wouldn’t presume to call you a bleeding heart liberal. I’m not a name-caller. I’m not powayseller (ouch). 🙂
Certainly we can agree that there is waste in both government and within businesses. However, businesses have a built-in mechanism for minimizing waste – competition and profit. There is little to no pressure within the government to do the same.
There is always that justification that if we give more money to the government, it can do so many things – the job training, feeding the hungry, and all that. But at the end of it, who are you giving the money to? The politicians, the bureaucrats, the people who have no desire to actually solve the problems.
In fact, I like your model better. We could use more people like you. But with all the job training, the school programs, did you notice how well it works without the government? How things actually got done? How much more effective you were?
I find that things usually work a lot better when the government leaves us alone. I’m fairly sure you’ll agree with that.
Participanttaxes taxes
cyphire:
I, for one, am glad that the rich do not pay more taxes than they already do because any dollar the government takes is a dollar wasted. Take a look at how badly the government spends money and then you advocate giving them more? IMHO that is an exercise in lunacy.
It’s also interesting that you admit that the “the folks in DC are screwing you and millions of others out of their future by keeping the vast majority of money in the hands of a tiny fraction of the country.” And you want to increase the amount of money that they handle?
Who do you want to handle the money – those who know how to handle it or those who know how to spend it badly?
Just a thought…
-
AuthorPosts
