Posted on 06/21/2005 9:42:59 AM PDT by ambrose
definatly...
Ok, if you happen to run accross some stats, let me know the specifics. No need to search and sort for any. I was going to use the data to show that the remaining portion of housing under rent control is most likely still driving the cost of new housing up. You end up with more competition for less availaibility. The only benefactors of rent control are the people currently living in rent control quarters. Those families searching for housing end up unable to afford housing.......
At least that's what Thomas Sowell writes in "Applied Economics" and it makes sense to me. The "beyond stage one" thinking makes it more clear how much more affordable housing would be without rent control.
When we are done with that well find something else for the repubs to do that does not involve securing our borders, reducing government spending, or using more than UN style pressure tactics to get the Chinese to float their currency..
Ass fee? I'm afraid to ask what you get for that ass fee :^)
I am trying to figure out what the next bubble will be before it starts. Any ideas? Anyone?
;) I pay in the bathroom..
I agree. Might as well make all headlines read "Beware: Stuff could happen."
I think it's more likely that an economic slowdown will pop housing prices than the other way around.
But I could be wrong. :^)
And guess who ends up paying for that?
Be aware that in many places a debtor cannot walk away scott free from a loan. In Texas for example the borrower is liable even if the home does not cover the outstanding debt. (This happened to me. I went to California and asked a lawyer what would happen and was told that the law in CA cooperates with the law in TX and would help the TX courts atach other assets to settle the debt. The loan agencies you mentioned are not liable for the debt, they help transfer the loan in the secondary loan market, but the only one responsible for the debt is the borrower.
Now in California where the home CAN be surrendered for the debt the lender takes the hit, again not the taxpayers.
It would seem that certain markets in
California, Florida and Arizona are tracking along unsustainable trends. Where I am in S.E. Michigan, many areas have not seen any appreciation in 2 years. I see many houses that are listed for less than what people paid 2-3 years ago. Rent prices have not increased much in 5 years. I doubt the midwest will be hit as hard if some of those hot cities experience a crash.
Really?
Then you do the math, ok?
How many households are there in the US? (I'm going to go with ~100 million).
If growth supports 1.5million new houses per year and they're building two million... then they need to be replacing 500k houses in order for me to be right.
100 million households only needing to replace 500k houses per year implies that the average home will last for 200 years.
What does your math say?
Your cavalier "it needs to pop" comment sounds like someone who has either made his or hasn't purchaed yet.
It looks like 50,000 units in NYC are rent controlled, out of a total somewhere a little upwards of 3 million. These units, apparently, never come onto the open market. Another million or so units come under rent stablilization, which restricts the amount the rent can be raised from one year to the next, but allows the free market to determine the rent when the unit is open ("vacancy decontrol"). Here's a good analysis of the situation:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_34.htm
New York City housing is a famous example of meddling in the free market, etc. I doubt that waving a magic wand and eliminating all rent controls would bring the price of rents down significantly. Really.
The truth of the matter is, there are a lot of things that work in NYC that don't work in other places. And a lot of things that work in others places that would be a disaster for NYC. One of my strangest memories is seeing a Palestinian and an Israeli store keeper yelling in two different languages at a confused Italian American cop for ticketing an old Irish lady who happened to be a customer in both their stores.
So you live in Macon GA, but not Macon County, right?
(I'm 45 minutes north of ATL myself)
"Of course, the weather sucks in Georgia."
Yeah, golfing and fishing year-round, rather than dealing with the cold, wet winters of the miserable Northeast sucks.
It does suck to occasionally wear shorts on Christmas.
Homes in the bubble areas are not rising at the rate of inflation. They're going up about 20 to 25% per year.
We're in the Phoenix area, and home prices here are skyrocketing. We bought our house a little over two years ago and already homes in our neighborhood are selling for 200K more than that. For most people, their increased home values have little meaning, unless you sell your home and either downsize or move somewhere with far cheaper homes.
For most people, their increased home values have little meaning, unless you sell your home and either downsize or move somewhere with far cheaper homes.
I disagree. I think that a large percentage of people are succumbing to the "wealth effect." Some are not saving, thinking that the increased price of the home is "saving" for them. Others are running up credit card debt with the idea that an equity loan will get them out of trouble. And a good many are counting on the sale of that home to finance their retirement.
Nope, I live on the extreme north end of Columbus - an hour and 15 minutes from the airport.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.