To: Hydroshock
The market was OVER heated. It’s simply a market correction. This is common in the real estate cycle. This time around house values were extreme. Most houses were NOT worth what people paid. Through “no money down” and other creative financing people worked their way into a frenzy pushing the prices beyond what they would normally be in the real estate cycle.
What we should do is ALLOW the MARKET to self correct. Have NO GOVERNMENT involvement since that will ONLY EXASPERATE things. Plus people need to LEARN to be savvy buyers and buy ONLY what they can AFFORD. Government intervention would only reward irresponsible behavior. Government intervention FUELED the Depression - let's NOT repeat that.
2 posted on
10/02/2007 7:58:02 AM PDT by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God) .)
To: nmh
AGREED!!!!
3 posted on
10/02/2007 8:00:32 AM PDT by
Hydroshock
("The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." - Sam Ervin)
To: nmh
I watch a couple of DIY cable channels. One showed a couple looking to buy in Chi town. One of the “homes” was less than 12 ft wide, 2 bdrm/1 bath and had ceilings so low they has to duck to get into several rooms - a converted chicken coop came to mind. The owner was *only* asking $299,000!
I would say the prices are insane, not just overheated.
5 posted on
10/02/2007 8:25:01 AM PDT by
ASOC
(Yeah, well, maybe - but can you *prove* it?)
To: nmh
This “pending home sales index” seems to reflect the degree to which prospective home buyers can find mortgage lenders. The fact that fewer buyers have been successful in getting mortgage approval is natural given that the lending of money to buyers who were then unable to meet their mortgage payments started the whole mess to begin with. I think that lending institutions are now checking more closely the financial situation of borrowers before lending them mortgage money. Therefore, I don’t believe the index is any sort of indicator that the housing market is collapsing, merely that buyers are being subjected to a more rigorous background check.
8 posted on
10/02/2007 8:53:44 AM PDT by
finnigan2
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson