Buying a home won't get much cheaper

[-p.tiddy-]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/real_estate/home-buying/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

good read on CNN today


and in related news:

Jobless claims improve
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/economy/jobless-claims/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1



I'm thinking about buying a second home and renting out my condo...time seems to be perfect

[rawimpact]

Go for it, i locked in a loan with a very low fixed interest rate a few years back. I rented out some rooms to students and pay a few hundred a month for ownership. It took a while for me because although i had good credit, i didn't really have any credit history outside credit card usage and car loan.

[SwaglessManatee]

The time to buy was a few years ago when the government was doing that program where they gave you 8k if you were a new home buyer.

[rawimpact]

The time to buy was a few years ago when the government was doing that program where they gave you 8k if you were a new home buyer.
Yes, that's what i got in on. It basically covered closing cost and a few fixes... it was 8k for new first time homebuyers and 4k for second home buyers.

[DeuceWallaces]

Gonna be a few years yet for us. Sucks because the past few years have been the time.

[embersyc]

As far as I can tell housing prices have been on the rise around here for the past year or so. I bought mine six months ago when I noticed the upward trend.

[rufuspaul]

Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services (PNC, Fortune 500), said he expects home prices to flatten out by the third quarter and start climbing by next year.

I sure hope that's the case.

[Niytrus]

The time to buy was a few years ago when the government was doing that program where they gave you 8k if you were a new home buyer.

I disagree. I bought at the end last year without the program and saved about $22k by just waiting it out alone. The price drop between that time and and now is huge. My fixed interest rate is on the lower side of 3%.

[rawimpact]

As far as I can tell housing prices have been on the rise around here for the past year or so. I bought mine six months ago when I noticed the upward trend.

Yes, but no offense, Detroit's economy isn't quite representative of the US. I'm actually surprised it's improving there considering unemployment there is ~17%. Where i live, the economy has been improving the last two years already and unemployment is only 8% which is fantastic.

[Niytrus]

Yes, but no offense, Detroit's economy isn't quite representative of the US. I'm actually surprised it's improving there considering unemployment there is ~17%. Where i live, the economy has been improving the last two years already and unemployment is only 8% which is fantastic.

Detroit is definitely its own market; I think some areas of FL & NV fit into that category as well

[embersyc]

Well to be fair I don't actually live in Detroit, but in West Bloomfield which is one of the better neighborhoods in the state.

[DeuceWallaces]

Lol you guys need to understand that NW Detroit subs are super filthy rich in many cases. All the white people left the city in the 60's.

[hoopaddict08]

Looking to buy my first home in Michigan and houses are going quickly. There are a lot of foreclosures and they usually have multiple offers the first week on the market. Its frustrating because there have been some nice houses.

[Thorpesaurous]

Go for it, i locked in a loan with a very low fixed interest rate a few years back. I rented out some rooms to students and pay a few hundred a month for ownership. It took a while for me because although i had good credit, i didn't really have any credit history outside credit card usage and car loan.


I'm in the same boat. I have good credit but it's thin. Mostly my student loan. Outside of that if I wanted something I saved up and bought it, which somehow makes me irresponsible in the eyes of the banking industries that leveraged itself to the point of collapse, but whatever.

I'm still looking, but it appears that inventory is finally beginning to move, so it's getting a little harder to find something I want. I had two places I really liked last year. One I hemmed and hawed over till it was gone, the other I lost on going to low. Both my fault, but it appears I've gotta start getting more agressive this year if I want to close on something before the new year.

[FatComputerNerd]

Bought my first home last summer.

Now (and the past few years) is definitely the time to buy if you're able.

[Godzuki]

lmao i actually commented in this earlier this morning. look for KB13 under 'Best Rating', towards the bottom of the page...

and i disagree that buying now is good if you don't read my post there. like KevinNYC said/linked which i agree with, houses aren't going to be the 'investment' they used to be, and if they ever do end up like that i'd be weary of another bubble waiting to burst. If anything i can see housing values remaining flat for a very long time with supply being so much higher than demand, and thats not even including Developers hoping to capitalize on any area where demand is high where they've been holding back for a while now.

also that housing credit was sort of a government marketing scheme to boost REal Estate sales since prices were still relatively high and dropping, and most house values have dropped considerably more than $8000 since then....it was like a 'cash for clunkers' to get people to spend and boost economy.

[KevinNYC]

Here's the issue.

Buying a house is definitely cheap compared to where it was in 2007, but you also cannot expect your house to be an investment anymore. Outside of some markets with short supply like New York, this is going to be a possibly long term issue.

Robert Shiller is an economist who co-created the Case-Shiller Index which tracks home prices in 20 markets.

He's pessimistic on a recovery (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-usa-housing-rebound-idUSBRE83N0SK20120424)


The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.

"I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes," Shiller said.

The S&P/Case-Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas gained 0.2 percent in February on a seasonally adjusted basis, the first uptick in prices in 10 months.

But Shiller called it "a very mixed bag." Nine of the 20 cities recorded falling or flat prices on the month.

He said suburban areas in particular might endure further price declines as high gas prices increase demand for "walkable cities."

So if you are buying a house, you need to consider how long you are going to live there. If you plan on moving in 10 years, it might not be a great move, because it's unclear if you will get a return.

I think the issue of whether to buy or whether to rent is more complicated that it used to be.

[Loneshot]

One thing i've never understood: the glorification of buying a house.

I don't understand this simply because what good is owning a house if you don't own the land under it. You're essentially just renting with different standards.

[-p.tiddy-]

Here's the issue.

Buying a house is definitely cheap compared to where it was in 2007, but you also cannot expect your house to be an investment anymore. Outside of some markets with short supply like New York, this is going to be a possibly long term issue.

Robert Shiller is an economist who co-created the Case-Shiller Index which tracks home prices in 20 markets.

He's pessimistic on a recovery (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-usa-housing-rebound-idUSBRE83N0SK20120424)



So if you are buying a house, you need to consider how long you are going to live there. If you plan on moving in 10 years, it might not be a great move, because it's unclear if you will get a return.

I think the issue of whether to buy or whether to rent is more complicated that it used to be.


^^^ buying a house IS an investment, that is the ONLY way you can look at it...but I understand what you are getting at, you meant don't expect sharp gains.

IMO this market and just about every market is impossible to predict...



the one thing that is good about a long term morgage though is that it doesn't adjust to inflation...inflation actually helps your investment if you are still paying.

your money and salary inflate 5%-10% every year...but your morgage payment stays the exact same on a fixed.

so 20 years from now when $100k a year is min wage lol, your house payment will look like pennies.

[bdreason]

Most of the business I do these days is for people buying 2nd and 3rd homes, vacation homes, or investment properties.

The rich are only getting richer... and the poor still can't afford to buy a home... and will forever be renters a.k.a. peasants.

I've seen so many people reach for their goal of home ownership over the past decade, only to fall flat on their faces... and left in a worse position (credit) than when they started.


I hate to sound like a downer, but I'd say maybe 5% of my clients are first-time home owners. The price drop of property/homes isn't opening opportunities for new home owners like the media would have you believe, it's only allowing the financially secure to further increase their wealth.

I also work in property management, and that business is booming. More and more middle-aged and older people being forced into renting because of failed attempts at home ownership.

[Nanners]

One thing i've never understood: the glorification of buying a house.

I don't understand this simply because what good is owning a house if you don't own the land under it. You're essentially just renting with different standards.

actually when you buy a house, you do own the property it is on, including the land below it and the airspace above it.... unless you are buying a condo or something like that.

[Nanners]

^^^ buying a house IS an investment, that is the ONLY way you can look at it...but I understand what you are getting at, you meant don't expect sharp gains.

IMO this market and just about every market is impossible to predict...



the one thing that is good about a long term morgage though is that it doesn't adjust to inflation...inflation actually helps your investment if you are still paying.

your money and salary inflate 5%-10% every year...but your morgage payment stays the exact same on a fixed.

so 20 years from now when $100k a year is min wage lol, your house payment will look like pennies.

the median wage has remained flat since the 70's.... in 20 years from now i bet min wage will be like $10/hr

[-p.tiddy-]

actually when you buy a house, you do own the property it is on, including the land below it and the airspace above it.... unless you are buying a condo or something like that.
I live in a condo building

you own a % of the land the building is on

[-p.tiddy-]

the median wage has remained flat since the 70's.... in 20 years from now i bet min wage will be like $10/hr
I just meant that the average income will be much higher

yeah maybe min wage people will get kicked in the balls still

[DCL]

if you can afford it, go look around for a house already within these couple years.

the government is continually printing shitloads of money. that process will eventually creep into inflation and ignite a storm of rising prices of basically everything. no one may know "when" that effect might exactly happen, but if you've ever open an econ book, you KNOW inflation will happen from the consequences of what's happening with the money supply.

And look at who's in charge. fking Bernanke is just waiting for his opportunity to inject QE3 and beyond. that money may remain dormant in reserves for awhile, but once it gets out, it's not gonna shrink. and at some point in the future, that money supply will inflate prices of assets.

[DCL]

The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.

"I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes," Shiller said.

The S&P/Case-Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas gained 0.2 percent in February on a seasonally adjusted basis, the first uptick in prices in 10 months.

But Shiller called it "a very mixed bag." Nine of the 20 cities recorded falling or flat prices on the month.

He said suburban areas in particular might endure further price declines as high gas prices increase demand for "walkable cities."


that's a very funny analysis by shiller.

i don't have his pedigree nor am I a yale professor, but when he said, "I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes," I'm only wondering if he's simply referring to himself because he's 66 and expecting to die early.

but to say we won't see a turnaround in our lifetimes is just irrational horse sh!t to the exponential power. the national debt of this country is growing outrageously by trillions every year. social security is heading to bankruptcy. with all these deficits, how do you think the government will pay back to the debts????

the magical printing machine. there's no gold standard. go print whatever the fk you want, bernanke.

they have already used this, and they will continue to use this because they got nothing. the worst hasn't even happened yet, and the government has already been printing and printing and printing craploads of money. this trend is not going to stop because it's the easy solution to fix money problems, although a very dangerous one because increasing money supply only drives down the value of currency and explodes values of assets in the future. we've seen it in germany after WWII. we've seen it in brazil and argentina in recent decades. and it's going on right now in zimbabwe.

i don't think we'll reach to those exaggerated levels, but there will be a dynamic effect on inflation towards that direction regardless due to all this unhealthy upward change of money supply. this is inevitable. so i'm not sure what logic is shiller using or what the flying fk is he smoking, talking about a lifetime long turnaround.

[KevinNYC]

^^^ buying a house IS an investment, that is the ONLY way you can look at it...but I understand what you are getting at, you meant don't expect sharp gains.

IMO this market and just about every market is impossible to predict...

Given the fact that home prices could be flat or even fall a little more. It probably only makes sense if you are planning on being in that home for a long time.

If you have a shorter time frame, then you have to look if it's worth it. Giving the amount of housing stock, it's still cheaper to rent in many places even when you weigh selling the house at a profit.

Most of the folks here are pretty young, so it's probably OK to buy, but it's no a simple choice if you are older or if you know you want to change cities.

Plus foreclosures are still coming. You need to research your local market. Google foreclosure pipeline or foreclosure glut to see what I mean.

The northeast still has a lot of foreclosures that are yet to be processed. (My guess for this is that sunbelt states like California, Florida and Nevada got crushed when the bubble burst and those foreclosures already happened and the the foreclosures in the Northeast have less to do with the original subprime market, but have to do with recession and folks losing their jobs.)

[KevinNYC]

that's a very funny analysis by shiller.

i don't have his pedigree nor am I a yale professor, but when he said, "I worry that we might not see a really major turnaround in our lifetimes," I'm only wondering if he's simply referring to himself because he's 66 and expecting to die early.

but to say we won't see a turnaround in our lifetimes is just irrational horse sh!t to the exponential power. the national debt of this country is growing outrageously by trillions every year. social security is heading to bankruptcy. with all these deficits, how do you think the government will pay back to the debts????

the magical printing machine. there's no gold standard. go print whatever the fk you want, bernanke.

they have already used this, and they will continue to use this because they got nothing. the worst hasn't even happened yet, and the government has already been printing and printing and printing craploads of money. this trend is not going to stop because it's the easy solution to fix money problems, although a very dangerous one because increasing money supply only drives down the value of currency and explodes values of assets in the future. we've seen it in germany after WWII. we've seen it in brazil and argentina in recent decades. and it's going on right now in zimbabwe.

i don't think we'll reach to those exaggerated levels, but there will be a dynamic effect on inflation towards that direction regardless due to all this unhealthy upward change of money supply. this is inevitable. so i'm not sure what logic is shiller using or what the flying fk is he smoking, talking about a lifetime long turnaround.

This is just complete and utter bullshit.
No, you're not a Yale professor and you don't have his pedigree or even know who the **** Robert Shiller is even though he called both the stock market bubble and the housing bubble and was voted one of the 100 most influential economists in the world.

You're someone who doesn't understand why inflation is so low right now DESPITE Bernanke's Quantitative Easing starts yapping about Zimbabwe. Good ****ing lord.

You know that German Hyperinflation was in the 1920's right? Or BEFORE War World II? You know that Bernanke didn't step in, the US would most likely being experiencing DEFLATION, you know, like we had during The Great Depression?

Our 10 year Treasury yield is still under 2%.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=DGS10&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1962-01-02&coed=2012-05-02&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Daily&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-05-03&revision_date=2012-05-03

[DCL]

This is just complete and utter bullshit.
No, you're not a Yale professor and you don't have his pedigree or even know who the **** Robert Shiller is even though he called both the stock market bubble and the housing bubble and was voted one of the 100 most influential economists in the world.

You're someone who doesn't understand why inflation is so low right now DESPITE Bernanke's Quantitative Easing starts yapping about Zimbabwe. Good ****ing lord.

You know that German Hyperinflation was in the 1920's right? Or BEFORE War World II? You know that Bernanke didn't step in, the US would most likely being experiencing DEFLATION, you know, like we had during The Great Depression?

Our 10 year Treasury yield is still under 2%.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=DGS10&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1962-01-02&coed=2012-05-02&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Daily&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-05-03&revision_date=2012-05-03

Wow, are you really so fuking clueless about money supply?

do you know what the *** happens to prices when money supply is shot up???

do you really have any fking clue??

[KevinNYC]

Do you have any ****ing clue what a zero lower bound is and how that defines the situation we are in? or that the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe are terrible analogies for our current situation. But Japan's lost decade of the 1990's is a very good analogy for where we are?

Do you have any ****ing clue how depressed demand for goods is 3 and a half years after the market meltdown and that moderate inflation let alone, high inflation, let alone hyperinflation is not going to happen until demand comes back?

Do you realize that inflation is one of the reasons we didn't go back to the Great Depression after WWII when our debt was a greater percentage of GDP than it is now? Why do we still have very low inflation? We don't even have moderate inflation. We don't even have double digit inflation a couple years after Bernake has loosened the money supply? Why? You should be able to answer that question before you start screaming about Zimbabwe. You're talking out of your ass.

Inflation last year was 3.16 %. We have seen higher inflation in more than half the years I've been alive. Yet never hyperinflation.

[DCL]

Do you have any ****ing clue what a zero lower bound is and how that defines the situation we are in? or that the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe are terrible analogies for our current situation. But Japan's lost decade of the 1990's is a very good analogy for where we are?

Do you have any ****ing clue how depressed demand for goods is 3 and a half years after the market meltdown and that moderate inflation let alone, high inflation, let along hyperinflation is not going to happen until demand comes back?

Do you realize that inflation is one of the reasons we didn't go back to the Great Depression after WWII when our debt was a greater percentage of GDP than it is now? Why do we still have very low inflation? We don't even have moderate inflation. We don't even have double digit inflation a couple years after Bernake has loosened the money supply? Why? You should be able to answer that question before you start screaming about Zimbabwe. You're talking out of your ass.

Inflation last year was 3.16 %. We have seen higher inflation in more than half the years I've been alive. Yet never hyperinflation.

Wow, you obviously can't think but you can't read neither. That's too much.

You keep on skipping the question, or do you really not have any clue about the law of money supply of economies???

I never said US will become Zimbabwe. for you take that notion from my sentence is just extraordinarily retarded. again, you need much improvement on your reading comprehension. zimbabwe was simply used an extreme illustration of what happens to extreme money supply changes.

but I asked you a very simple question, which you still have not responded to. i wonder why.

but maybe if you try to answer, your dumb ass might actually figure it out and know you're wrong.

so what is the eventual effect of asset prices when money supply is shot up???

answer the fcking question please or you're just wasting people's time with your horse sh!t.

[bdreason]

Reliance upon the Federal Reserve/CBS will always produce a boom-and-bust cycle; it's how the system is designed (flawed).


At this point, Americans don't own America. It is owned by the few elite (British) families who created and control the Federal Reserve and Central Banking System. Don't worry though, the Central Banking system that was created in 1913 doesn't only run the United States, it runs most of the World.

Way off topic, sorry. Just wanted to point out that another depression is inevitable. It's only a matter of when, not if.

[KevinNYC]

Wow, you obviously can't think but you can't read neither. That's too much.

You keep on skipping the question, or do you really not have any clue about the law of money supply of economies???

I never said US will become Zimbabwe. for you take that notion from my sentence is just extraordinarily retarded. again, you need much improvement on your reading comprehension. zimbabwe was simply used an extreme illustration of what happens to extreme money supply changes.

but I asked you a very simple question, which you still have not responded to. i wonder why.

but maybe if you try to answer, your dumb ass might actually figure it out and know you're wrong.

so what is the eventual effect of asset prices when money supply is shot up???

answer the fcking question please or you're just wasting people's time with your horse sh!t.

The problem is you act like your question addresses the current situation and it doesn't.

Make you a deal, I stop wasting people's time with my horseshit, if you admit Robert Shiller knows a **** ton more about economics and housing prices than you ever will and his track record gives his opinion some weight.

[Jailblazers7]

The Fed doesnt produce boom/bust cycles. The economy will do that on its own naturally.

Whether the Fed worsens or weakens the cycle is arguable.

[Living Being]

Anyone buy a home with no money up front (down payment, closing costs)?

[bdreason]

The Fed doesnt produce boom/bust cycles. The economy will do that on its own naturally.

Whether the Fed worsens or weakens the cycle is arguable.


I'm not going to get into some long, drawn out argument... but the Federal Reserve runs the U.S. Economy. They control the Money Supply (inflation didn't exist before 1913), they determine Interest Rates, and quite frankly, they control the U.S. political system as well... which is why nothing will ever change. The Federal Reserve is so powerful, that not even the U.S. government can audit them. We're talking about a PRIVATE Corporation (the use of the word Federal is funny) owned and controlled by a few elite families.

The creation of the Federal Reserve is the biggest financial scam the World has ever seen. They used economic fears in the early 1900's to take create a PRIVATE Corporation that could systematically drain the Assets of America. The Federal Reserve owns America, and they own you too.

[DCL]

The problem is you act like your question addresses the current situation and it doesn't.

Make you a deal, I stop wasting people's time with my horseshit, if you admit Robert Shiller knows a **** ton more about economics and housing prices than you ever will and his track record gives his opinion some weight.

No, the problem is that maybe shiller is your idol, and you're acting like a some kobe groupie. i don't care about him.

shiller stated that we might not see a turnaround in the housing market for A LIFETIME. really? you actually believe that sh!t???? i'm not even arguing the short-term. but when he says A LIFETIME, how can you not sense that serious BS after thinking through just a little?

A LIFETIME???? you think prices will be the same as today 40 or 50 years from now, or whatever you consider a lifetime to be??

Look, keep it simple for a second. even by the lowest estimates of annual inflation compounded over 40 something years, prices are going to grow BY A LOT.

in fact, find me one town or city anywhere in the world where prices of homes have remain stagnant for 40-50 years??

Outside of a global nuclear destruction, home prices are not going to be the same 40-50 years from now.

and when you add this with the growth of money supply and its long-term effects, it's going to enhance the effect even further.

as for any kind of oversupply, that is totally irrelevant over time when you consider the growth of population, especially if the timeline given was a generation!??

bottom line - if you buy a $100,000 house today, it's going to be worth a lot more than that after a whole generation of 40 or 50 years or whatever.

[KevinNYC]

No, the problem is that maybe shiller is your idol, and you're acting like a some kobe groupie. i don't care about him.

You can admit you don't know who he is. We all know that by now, anyway.
Uh, my idol, hmmmm, no I don't think so.


shiller stated that we might not see a turnaround in the housing market for A LIFETIME. really? you actually believe that sh!t????

You must have missed the headline and beginning of that article, where he says a generation


Maybe no housing rebound for a generation: Shiller

or that first sentence


The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.

A generation is less than a lifetime.

He does later say we may not see a "major turnaround in our lifetimes." I think major is the key word there.

Home prices nationwide are down 3.5 percent from last year. This is even with very low mortgage rates and very few homes on the market. Phoenix is up 3.3% while Atlanta is down 17% from last year. Home prices have fallen basically ever year since 2006. There's no real reason to think we have hit the bottom yet.

Anywhere here is the video (http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/04/24/housing-may-not-turnaround-in-our-lifeti?videoId=233843997) with Robert Shiller and folks interested in buying should check out what he says. The two takeaways I have are,

1. the bubble was so large and home prices so out of whack with what people can afford, prices may not have hit a bottom for one and

2. Prices are very low even though there's a record low number of homes for sales and historically low interest rates.

We are building a third of the number of new homes we were five years ago. This suggest that once prices go up for a bit, there's going be a flood sellers putting their homes on the market and new construction which are going to keep prices low.

As for the $100,000 house being worth more in 50 years, when you consider if a home is a good value you want to consider what economists call real value vs nominal value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_%28economics%29)


http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/RealHousingPrices_1890_2010_log-650x464.png

Buying a house is a good way to lock nominal value, that is the rise in the price of an asset due to inflation, but that may not be your best investment.

For example, let's say you can rent a home for prices that work out to

$2,000 per month for 30 years or you could buy that house for $3,000 a month for 30 years.

If the price of the house just keeps up with inflation which is say 3.5%, while the stock market grows a rate of 4%, you would be better off renting and investing the extra $1,000 in a stock index.

[joe]

Do you have any ****ing clue what a zero lower bound is and how that defines the situation we are in? or that the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe are terrible analogies for our current situation. But Japan's lost decade of the 1990's is a very good analogy for where we are?

Do you have any ****ing clue how depressed demand for goods is 3 and a half years after the market meltdown and that moderate inflation let alone, high inflation, let alone hyperinflation is not going to happen until demand comes back?

Do you realize that inflation is one of the reasons we didn't go back to the Great Depression after WWII when our debt was a greater percentage of GDP than it is now? Why do we still have very low inflation? We don't even have moderate inflation. We don't even have double digit inflation a couple years after Bernake has loosened the money supply? Why? You should be able to answer that question before you start screaming about Zimbabwe. You're talking out of your ass.

Inflation last year was 3.16 %. We have seen higher inflation in more than half the years I've been alive. Yet never hyperinflation.

hahahaha... we have very low inflation! That is just grand.

It amazes me, how so many smart people such as yourself, can be duped into believing this crap.

Inflation is 3.16 percent.. after they alter the statistical formulas, play around with the numbers, change the definition of inflation, and lie to your face. But in the real world we do in fact have high inflation. Just ask anybody trying to make ends meet on the same salary they had 5-10 years ago, or even 2 years ago.

[joe]

No, the problem is that maybe shiller is your idol, and you're acting like a some kobe groupie. i don't care about him.

shiller stated that we might not see a turnaround in the housing market for A LIFETIME. really? you actually believe that sh!t???? i'm not even arguing the short-term. but when he says A LIFETIME, how can you not sense that serious BS after thinking through just a little?

A LIFETIME???? you think prices will be the same as today 40 or 50 years from now, or whatever you consider a lifetime to be??

Look, keep it simple for a second. even by the lowest estimates of annual inflation compounded over 40 something years, prices are going to grow BY A LOT.

in fact, find me one town or city anywhere in the world where prices of homes have remain stagnant for 40-50 years??

Outside of a global nuclear destruction, home prices are not going to be the same 40-50 years from now.

and when you add this with the growth of money supply and its long-term effects, it's going to enhance the effect even further.

as for any kind of oversupply, that is totally irrelevant over time when you consider the growth of population, especially if the timeline given was a generation!??

bottom line - if you buy a $100,000 house today, it's going to be worth a lot more than that after a whole generation of 40 or 50 years or whatever.

Just because something is worth more in dollar terms in the future, doesn't mean the housing market has turned around. The money itself may just be that much weaker. You were talking about inflation and the fed before, so I'm surprised that you aren't making that connection. Or am I not understanding you?

[joe]

I'm not going to get into some long, drawn out argument... but the Federal Reserve runs the U.S. Economy. They control the Money Supply (inflation didn't exist before 1913), they determine Interest Rates, and quite frankly, they control the U.S. political system as well... which is why nothing will ever change. The Federal Reserve is so powerful, that not even the U.S. government can audit them. We're talking about a PRIVATE Corporation (the use of the word Federal is funny) owned and controlled by a few elite families.

The creation of the Federal Reserve is the biggest financial scam the World has ever seen. They used economic fears in the early 1900's to take create a PRIVATE Corporation that could systematically drain the Assets of America. The Federal Reserve owns America, and they own you too.

Yep. But why do you emphasize the word "private?" A central bank wouldn't exist in the private sector. It's the government that gives them their power.

The Fed is private like the Post Office is private. It's illegal to compete with them. If we could legally use a different currency, the Fed would be irrelevant.

I remember when I first learned about the Fed, and I was so angry that it was "private." As if to say, if only the government had control over this power... they'd be responsible and wise! Not sure if that's how you feel, but frankly, I think it'd be even worse if the Congress itself controlled the Fed. They could print money whenever they wanted, to fund whatever spending they wanted. The deficit would be even more out of control. And who would vote these guys out, when they're promising everyone and their mother government aid?

[KevinNYC]

hahahaha... we have very low inflation! That is just grand.

It amazes me, how so many smart people such as yourself, can be duped into believing this crap.


Wish I could say the same, buddy.



But in the real world we do in fact have high inflation. Just ask anybody trying to make ends meet on the same salary they had 5-10 years ago, or even 2 years ago.

Joe, the situation you are described is stagnant wages not high inflation.

[joe]

Wish I could say the same, buddy.




Joe, the situation you are described is stagnant wages not high inflation.

If there's very little inflation, it shouldn't matter if my wage is stagnant! If there's very little inflation, 15$/hour in 2008 should be the same as 2012. But, yet, it's not!

Tell me, do you ever look at reality, or only graphs and government statistics?

If Ben Bernanke told you that cigarettes prevented cancer, approximately how long would it take you to buy a pack?

Let's see, C = the number of cigarettes in a pack, divided by GPD, plus 3.16%......

[joe]

I think housing prices will continue to go down. But, if you can get a fixed interest rate, and you can afford it, now isn't the worst time to buy. But don't buy it expecting prices to go up. Buy it for a place to live.

Why will prices keep going down? The government is still propping up the housing market. They are making it difficult for banks to foreclose, meaning a buck-load of houses have yet to hit the market. As more and more houses hit the market, prices will continue to fail.

For instance:


The ruling means the home on Amesbury Court, which has been in foreclosure since September 2008, can't go to a foreclosure sale until the bank either gets another summary judgment or goes to trial. The Glarums still live in the home.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/florida-appeals-court-rules-banks-can


NEW YORK, Jan 7 (Reuters Legal) - In a decision that may affect foreclosures nationwide, Massachusetts' highest court voided the seizure of two homes by Wells Fargo & Co and US Bancorp after the banks failed to show they held the mortgages at the time they foreclosed.

Bank shares fell, dragging down the broader U.S. stock market, after the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Friday issued its decision, which upheld a lower court ruling.

The unanimous decision is among the earliest to address the validity of foreclosures done without proper documentation. That issue last year prompted an uproar that led lenders such as Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Ally Financial Inc to temporarily stop seizing homes.

"A ruling like this will slow down the foreclosure process" for banks, said Marty Mosby, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities. "They're going to have to be really precise and get everything in order. It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room."

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/news/2011/01_-_january/top_mass__court_says_banks_can_t_foreclose_without _proper_title/

And many others. Just google "banks can't foreclose" for more information.

Government laws and regulations are hindering the free market from doing its job, that is, getting these overpriced houses, occupied by broke tenants, back onto the market for a cheaper price. But as this process continues, more houses will hit the market, and prices will keep dropping.

The government is also still providing cheap money and low interest rates to banks. When interest rates eventually rise, banks will have less money to lend, and house prices will go down some more.

Buy a house to live in it.. not as an investment. If it does happen to rise, good for you, but don't count on it anytime soon. Perhaps, yes, for a generation or more :D

[DCL]

You can admit you don't know who he is. We all know that by now, anyway.
Uh, my idol, hmmmm, no I don't think so.


n**** please. who doesn't know the case-shiller index? but it's funny you place so much hero worship on this guy.




You must have missed the headline and beginning of that article, where he says a generation or that first sentence

He does later say we may not see a "major turnaround in our lifetimes." I think major is the key word there.

a major turnaround is when prices go up. here's where you don't understand the advantage of properties because it's obvious you've never owned a home or made money from properties this way. even if that gain is flat against inflation, you win because of leverage.




As for the $100,000 house being worth more in 50 years, when you consider if a home is a good value you want to consider what economists call real value vs nominal value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_%28economics%29)

Buying a house is a good way to lock nominal value, that is the rise in the price of an asset due to inflation, but that may not be your best investment.

IT DOESN'T MATTER!

you are already admitting that nominal value is guaranteed to go up. that's inflation working asset appreciation. so at least you can understand this minimal part.

the next part. Nominal vs. Real inflation. You showing that graph obviously shows you don't have much real estate experience.

Look, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE REAL INFLATION OF THE PROPERTY GAIN IS JUST ZERO over time because leverage is the key to making money. As long as there's inflation, that's your advantage because it inflates the debt away.

Inflation, which I have tried to pound into your head, is the key. It's good you've finally accepted that inflation will come.

Now you gotta understand the next part, and that's leverage is what makes the whole f--king difference.

When inflation hits, it affects asset appreciation but IT DOES NOT AFFECT FIXED DEBT LEVELS. do you understand this at all??????

if you bought something for $10 but had to borrow $9 to buy it, that's high LTV. if this product only moved proportionally to inflation ( meaning real i was 0%), you've still made f--king money because debt relative to asset values go down. That does not go up along with everything else. Do you understand this???? I know this is brand new information to you.

[DCL]

Just because something is worth more in dollar terms in the future, doesn't mean the housing market has turned around. The money itself may just be that much weaker. You were talking about inflation and the fed before, so I'm surprised that you aren't making that connection. Or am I not understanding you?


You need to look into the leverage, and debt/asset ratio. You owe less as price levels increase because debt does not move in correllelation. That itself is almost a beautiful form of natural appreciation over time. inflation is pretty much a given during a very long period, so there's asset appreciation. but liability is fixed (unless it's those payment plans where debt grows over time). you following this?

[joe]

You need to look into the leverage, and debt/asset ratio. You owe less as price levels increase because debt does not move in correllelation. That itself is almost a beautiful form of natural appreciation over time. inflation is pretty much a given during a very long period, so there's asset appreciation. but liability is fixed (unless it's those payment plans where debt grows over time). you following this?

Yes, I follow you. And I agree that housing prices won't be the same in 40-50 years, for the same reason of inflation.

Inflation makes real estate a good buy if you plan to own the house, because the inflation will make it easier to pay off your debt.

But as an "investment," it's a shaky proposition. Because even if you buy a $100,000 house now, and sell it for $200,000 in 30 years..... you're getting paid back in depreciated currency.

But if you're saying it's worth it strictly because of the inflation/debt thing, I think you're right. If you can get a fixed interest rate and everything.

I'm just confused about what you mean by a "turnaround in housing." You say you think housing will turn around within 40-50 years. Do you mean, you think we'll have another bubble situation? Or just the natural rises of inflation? Or do you think the Fed and politicians will retire, giving us a stable free market and just ending this crazyness ?? :)


And, this just shows how much inflation distorts decisions. We've got people buying houses and just sitting on them, waiting for inflation to wipe out their liability. What an insane incentive structure. What better things might people be doing with their money, if things like that weren't going on.

Not insane for the people who take advantage of it, but idiotic of the policy makers. But what do you expect.

[Durant35]

Do you want to live in the city/metropolis or in a Small town?

[-p.tiddy-]

But Who Benefits From High Rates Of Inflation?

It is generally accepted in economic circles that moderate rates of inflation in the 2-4% range are actually good for the economy for the reasons mentioned above. But what happens when inflation rates increase significantly above this “safe rate”, as is likely in the U.S. over the next decade? When inflation hits 7-12% as many are expecting, who benefits?

The Government - The most obvious beneficiary of higher inflation, at least in the short term, is the government. Since they control the printing presses, the government will always be able to pay its debt, at least domestically since higher inflation effectively reduces the long-term cost of borrowing money.

Borrowers - Anyone borrowing money for a long term for a fixed rate (such as a fixed rate mortgage) benefits from inflation because, again, it effectively reduces the cost of future interest payments. That $2000 per month mortgage payment may seem like a lot today, but 20 years from now it will be worth a lot less. Your income will have risen to keep up with the constantly-increasing cost of living while your fixed-rate debt will have remained constant.

Owners Of Real Assets - Owners of real physical assets such as real estate, gold, timber, farm land, mines, etc tend to do very well during inflationary periods since the price of these assets (and the commodities they produce in the case of mines and farm and timber land) tends to rise along with inflation.

http://amateurassetallocator.com/2009/03/23/who-benefits-from-inflation/

[netsfan549]

sucks that I am still young, I wish I could afford a house

[KevinNYC]

I think housing prices will continue to go down. But, if you can get a fixed interest rate, and you can afford it, now isn't the worst time to buy. But don't buy it expecting prices to go up. Buy it for a place to live.

Why will prices keep going down? The government is still propping up the housing market. They are making it difficult for banks to foreclose, meaning a buck-load of houses have yet to hit the market. As more and more houses hit the market, prices will continue to fail.

For instance:


http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/florida-appeals-court-rules-banks-can



http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/news/2011/01_-_january/top_mass__court_says_banks_can_t_foreclose_without _proper_title/

And many others. Just google "banks can't foreclose" for more information.

Government laws and regulations are hindering the free market from doing its job, that is, getting these overpriced houses, occupied by broke tenants, back onto the market for a cheaper price. But as this process continues, more houses will hit the market, and prices will keep dropping.

The government is also still providing cheap money and low interest rates to banks. When interest rates eventually rise, banks will have less money to lend, and house prices will go down some more.

Buy a house to live in it.. not as an investment. If it does happen to rise, good for you, but don't count on it anytime soon. Perhaps, yes, for a generation or more :D

Joe, two points.

One, are you saying inflation is much higher, but they are lying about it or that 3% represents high inflation.

Two, the reason that the courts are holding up foreclosures, it's because they are UPHOLDING the laws of the market, because the banks were guilty of massive fraud for years.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bank-foreclosure-fraud-settlement-said-near/2012/02/08/gIQAXHAA0Q_story.htm)

[QUOTE]The five banks at the heart of the settlement are Wells Fargo, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Ally Financial and Citigroup. The five faced a public uproar in late 2010 when it became clear that the legal paperwork they had filed in numerous foreclosures included flawed and fraudulent documentation. In many cases, because of the way in which loans were hastily packaged and sold to investors, banks had difficulty verifying ownership of the underlying mortgages. Those

[ALBballer]

I just bought a condo for almost half of what it was sold for during 2004. I still think buying is a better than renting especially in my case since I'm not great with investments. Locked in at 3% which I think is sweet.

The way I figure it even if you lose value in your home, you will still re-cooperate some of the principle once you sell the home. With renting any money paid is a sunk cost. Also mortgage interest and property taxes are deductible when itemizing, something to keep in mind.

Obviously there is opportunity costs because you could invest invest the money you pay on the down payment or closing costs but like I said, I'm not the most savy investor.

[DaHeezy]

Buying is always the better option. Think of what you've already spent on rent that could have contributed to ownership. I'm a home owner for 5 years. Seen my property appraisal go up and down in that period. Goes up, yeah, I've made money, goes down, I pay less property tax towards the monthly mortgage. At the end of the day I own.

Thinking of buying a forclosure in Orlando or Vegas. Had a few friends buy property for ridiculously cheap. 800 sq condos in the 30,000. That's a steal. I can remortgage and own 2, have the other property rented out. Anybody invest here?

[netsfan549]

Buying is always the better option. Think of what you've already spent on rent that could have contributed to ownership. I'm a home owner for 5 years. Seen my property appraisal go up and down in that period. Goes up, yeah, I've made money, goes down, I pay less property tax towards the monthly mortgage. At the end of the day I own.

Thinking of buying a forclosure in Orlando or Vegas. Had a few friends buy property for ridiculously cheap. 800 sq condos in the 30,000. That's a steal. I can remortgage and own 2, have the other property rented out. Anybody invest here?

so around how much can a mortage cost a month?

[DaHeezy]

so around how much can a mortage cost a month?

It all depends on how long you want to lock in for.
Banks are desperate right now they are offering 35-50 year mortgages. Can you believe that?
I have a 20 year and am paying $1100 a month before property tax at an unfixed rate for a $250,000 1300 sq. condo in the fastest growing housing market in Canada. I've recently been appraised at 280,000 so I've banked 30,000 in the last 5 years.

[ALBballer]

so around how much can a mortage cost a month?

Depends on on the price of the house, interest rate, years and so forth.

Use this calculator for a general idea:

http://www.mlcalc.com/

[Nanners]

It amazes me, how so many smart people such as yourself, can be duped into believing this crap.



most ironic post of the century

[-p.tiddy-]

I just bought a condo for almost half of what it was sold for during 2004. I still think buying is a better than renting especially in my case since I'm not great with investments. Locked in at 3% which I think is sweet.

The way I figure it even if you lose value in your home, you will still re-cooperate some of the principle once you sell the home. With renting any money paid is a sunk cost. Also mortgage interest and property taxes are deductible when itemizing, something to keep in mind.

Obviously there is opportunity costs because you could invest invest the money you pay on the down payment or closing costs but like I said, I'm not the most savy investor.
if the value goes down more than you paid you lost

I have a friend in Florida that bought a house in 2006 which is now worth $60k less what he bought it for. He sold it and still owes the bank $60k.

This is a common morgage crisis story, a lot of home owners lost their ass

[-p.tiddy-]

Buying is always the better option. Think of what you've already spent on rent that could have contributed to ownership. I'm a home owner for 5 years. Seen my property appraisal go up and down in that period. Goes up, yeah, I've made money, goes down, I pay less property tax towards the monthly mortgage. At the end of the day I own.

Thinking of buying a forclosure in Orlando or Vegas. Had a few friends buy property for ridiculously cheap. 800 sq condos in the 30,000. That's a steal. I can remortgage and own 2, have the other property rented out. Anybody invest here?
no it isn't

lots of rich people rent homes and lease cars...because for the short term, renting is the better option.

buying is better for long term...if you know you will only stay somewhere fore 3 years, you rent.

If you know you will only drive a car for 2-3 years, you lease

[ALBballer]

if the value goes down more than you paid you lost

I have a friend in Florida that bought a house in 2006 which is now worth $60k less what he bought it for. He sold it and still owes the bank $60k.

This is a common morgage crisis story, a lot of home owners lost their ass

Yes this can also be the case. Unfortunately for your friend he bought when the prices were overvalued.

If your friend bought the house as his primary residence he could look at it this way. If he would of rented from 2006-2012, that money would have been lost regardless. So say rent is 2k a month, from 2006-2012 he would of paid over 100k+ in rent.

Something else to keep in mind, I believe rent has gone up since 2007. Less people can afford or be approved for mortgages=more renters=higher rent.

[DaHeezy]

no it isn't

lots of rich people rent homes and lease cars...because for the short term, renting is the better option.

buying is better for long term...if you know you will only stay somewhere fore 3 years, you rent.

If you know you will only drive a car for 2-3 years, you lease

Cars are different because they depreciate. Homes in the right market bought at the right value make money, even in the short term. If you can buy, buy.

If you're Rich I don't see the point in throwing money into something that has no return. And if you're rich, what's the point in having short term living situation? Unless you're renting to live in a place that's out of your means, which is purely esthetic.

[-p.tiddy-]

Cars are different because they depreciate. Homes in the right market bought at the right value make money, even in the short term. If you can buy, buy.

If you're Rich I don't see the point in throwing money into something that has no return. And if you're rich, what's the point in having short term living situation? Unless you're renting to live in a place that's out of your means, which is purely esthetic.
No dude...You don't know what you're talking about

There are closing costs and home owners fees and all sorts of shit that can be avoided by renting in the short term...if you are only going to live somewhere for 3 years, you would save money renting in most situations (given the price of the home stays the same)


If my condo is paid off FULL...I still have to pay $500 a month in homeowners fees and $400 a month property tax...this is "just throwing money away"...these are fees a renter doesn't have to worry about...as well as up keep.



there are plenty of scenerios where renting makes more sense

[-p.tiddy-]

what's the point in having short term living situation?

3 year condo in Vegas

summer beach house

etc
etc
etc


rich people rent all the time...they save money that way when they know it's short term.

professional athletes will rent homes knowing they might have to switch teams/cities soon

[DaHeezy]

3 year condo in Vegas

summer beach house

etc
etc
etc


rich people rent all the time...they save money that way when they know it's short term.

professional athletes will rent homes knowing they might have to switch teams/cities soon

You're talking specifics. Athletes? Who amonst us is going pro?
I'm talking the middle to upper class people on here and you're talking summer homes?
Yeah those specific situations maybe renting is ideal, but you're addressing maybe 3% of the population.
You're saying in my situation where I have a family, don't plan to relocate, essentially picked the neighborhood in which I plan to raise my kid, my family income is over 300,000 and you're telling me I'm better off renting? I'm pretty much in the higher percentile of home situations.

[ALBballer]

3 year condo in Vegas

summer beach house

etc
etc
etc


rich people rent all the time...they save money that way when they know it's short term.

professional athletes will rent homes knowing they might have to switch teams/cities soon

There's a book called "the millionaire next door" and studies in the book claim that most of these millionaires (i believe their definition of millionaire is someone with assets over 1 mill) in the study buy as opposed to renting/leasing since buying is the best financial move especially for the long term.

If you know for sure you are going to live in a place for 3 years them renting might be the best choice. I plan to live in my condo for around 5-7 years. Rent in the area I am looking to buy is around 1k-2k. If I rented for 7 years, I would spend over 80k-160k in rent. If I buy a condo in this range (80-160k) then I think buying is better since I would recooperate some of my principle at worst, and if the value of the condo increases I would make a tax free gain.

Obviously there are other costs like closing, taxes, utilities, association fees that you need to consider when buying.

[DeuceWallaces]

most ironic post of the century

Yes it is. Joe talks a lot, but it's just fluff. Not sure he knows anything, or does anything. I suspect he's just some kid in high school who read a Ron Paul website and is trying to sound cool on a basketball site. I highly doubt he has any education, career, etc. Sounds a lot like Starface; bashing left wing and welfare while he lives off his parents with no job.

[DaHeezy]

No dude...You don't know what you're talking about

There are closing costs and home owners fees and all sorts of shit that can be avoided by renting in the short term...if you are only going to live somewhere for 3 years, you would save money renting in most situations (given the price of the home stays the same)


If my condo is paid off FULL...I still have to pay $500 a month in homeowners fees and $400 a month property tax...this is "just throwing money away"...these are fees a renter doesn't have to worry about...as well as up keep.



there are plenty of scenerios where renting makes more sense

On the flip side how much do you think it would cost to rent your place long term? Considering you're paying $500 a month on homeowner fees on a condo, I'm thinking that it's a pretty luxurious space. I pay $300 and have 1300 2 bedroom, 2 bath plus a loft. I can say I'll definately rent my space for $1500+. Plus all the utilities? I'm not paying for that for my renters. so to tally it all up you're paying pretty muchthe same thing as a renter would pay, but now you own and have the option to sell.

Those homeowner fees goes into things like maintainance, parking, laundry and other amenities (gym, rec, park...) it's not going to watse. For being able to own that's pretty affordable.

[KevinNYC]

Basically, to answer the question if buying a home today won't get much cheaper you need to know when we have hit a bottom in the housing market.

And to answer that you need to know your local market.
If might have a been a good idea to buy in Phoenix last year, but it certainly wasn't in Atlanta.

I think prices will stay low for a few years and mortgages should stay low as well because I don't think the Fed will raise rates until the economy is coming back. I think any jump in home price will bring out more sellers who are sitting on the sidelines and would spur more homebuilding which would then bring prices back down. There are still a lot of homes in the foreclosure pipeline.

If you are buying a home, make sure that the seller has the deed all straightened out. Research MERS and foreclosuregate to see the see the mess the rampant fraud has created.

[DaHeezy]

Basically, to answer the question if buying a home today won't get much cheaper you need to know when we have hit a bottom in the housing market.

And to answer that you need to know your local market.
If might have a been a good idea to buy in Phoenix last year, but it certainly wasn't in Atlanta.

I think prices will stay low for a few years and mortgages should stay low as well because I don't think the Fed will raise rates until the economy is coming back. I think any jump in home price will bring out more sellers who are sitting on the sidelines and would spur more homebuilding which would then bring prices back down. There are still a lot of homes in the foreclosure pipeline.

If you are buying a home, make sure that the seller has the deed all straightened out. Research MERS and foreclosuregate to see the see the mess the rampant fraud has created.

And ultimately, hire a realator you can trust

[Nanners]

Yes it is. Joe talks a lot, but it's just fluff. Not sure he knows anything, or does anything. I suspect he's just some kid in high school who read a Ron Paul website and is trying to sound cool on a basketball site. I highly doubt he has any education, career, etc. Sounds a lot like Starface; bashing left wing and welfare while he lives off his parents with no job.

my mental image of joe is very similar. he is certainly below the age of 25, and there is no way that he supports himself. i expect most of the libertarian nonsense he spews was picked up listening to his father rant about taxes and welfare over the dinner table (joes posts have so little substance, at least ron paul websites include a couple facts).

the starface analogy is actually pretty good, aside from the fact that joe is not full of hate like starface is. even if joe is kind of a naive idiot, i have no doubt that he is a good human being. i do have doubts about starface.

[-p.tiddy-]

You're talking specifics. Athletes? Who amonst us is going pro?
I'm talking the middle to upper class people on here and you're talking summer homes?
Yeah those specific situations maybe renting is ideal, but you're addressing maybe 3% of the population.
You're saying in my situation where I have a family, don't plan to relocate, essentially picked the neighborhood in which I plan to raise my kid, my family income is over 300,000 and you're telling me I'm better off renting? I'm pretty much in the higher percentile of home situations.
that was just one example there are PLENTY of others...

There are plenty of people in my condo building that lease their condo out to others who know they will just be in Dallas for a year or two for business reasons.

and no I am not saying renting is better for a family that doesn't plan on relocating...if you have been reading my posts, you would know that short term is what I am talking about.

[-p.tiddy-]

On the flip side how much do you think it would cost to rent your place long term? Considering you're paying $500 a month on homeowner fees on a condo, I'm thinking that it's a pretty luxurious space. I pay $300 and have 1300 2 bedroom, 2 bath plus a loft. I can say I'll definately rent my space for $1500+. Plus all the utilities? I'm not paying for that for my renters. so to tally it all up you're paying pretty muchthe same thing as a renter would pay, but now you own and have the option to sell.

Those homeowner fees goes into things like maintainance, parking, laundry and other amenities (gym, rec, park...) it's not going to watse. For being able to own that's pretty affordable.
My condo is nice, my next door neighbor is Michael Huff of the Oakland Raiders, he is a Dallas native.

the home owners fees go to many things like you said, but it is essentially the same as renting in that it isn't being invested in anything...the HO fees pay for the swimming pool up keep etc...while renting pays for the roof over your head...neither are "going to waste"...but neither are being invested either.

[Godzuki]

so does calculated inflation in a 10 yr period offset property taxes and upkeep costs?

the biggest thing housing investment has going for it is population booming. Otherwise i'd think house values would consistently depreciate. Its sort of silly how even older houses kept going up and up as they got older too. some real crappy houses at that, or even old condos.

[joe]

Joe, two points.

One, are you saying inflation is much higher, but they are lying about it or that 3% represents high inflation.


As a libertarian, I would have assumed that you approved of the principle of someone who is suing you for foreclosure, can actually prove they have the deed to your house. I would have thought that you approved the government protecting threats to your property by enforcing fraud laws and preventing abuses like this one (http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2010/10/willoughby_couple_foreclosed_u.html) where an Ohio cop who never missed a payment was foreclosed on three times after his mortgage was sold 5 times and of the previous companies didn't post his payments (That previous company was sued by the FTC for $40 million for its "deceptive and illegal practices including not posting customer payments."


The Fed manipulates the measurement of inflation. If you measure inflation the way they used to measure it, it's already higher than when Nixon instituted price controls.

There's also inflation that simply can't be measured in statistics. You can't really blame the Fed for this, but it just is what it is. Restaurants, for example, are using lesser ingredients and smaller portions, but not raising prices. Same with all the food in the grocery store. I wouldn't be surprised if this applied to other things, like Shampoo and Soap. Or televisions with lesser parts.

Here's an article discussing this trend:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2008/05/11/ingredient_swap.ART_ART_05-11-08_D1_CJA5BG6.html

I'm sure there's been studies on it, but it's also something you just need to talk to people about. I always talk to my local pizza shop owner, and he tells me straight up. They have to cut back services, stop offering delivery, use cheaper ingredients.. because prices are just too high. This is people reacting to inflation, but it won't shop up in the statistics.

Also, the statistics have a lot of tricks in them. I'm not sure about the CPI, it may be this way, but some of their statistics only show rising inflation if SOME prices are rising, but not others. If all prices are rising, it doesn't count. But when companies ship from abroad, they're going to be paying more thanks to a weaker currency. So there's a lot of tricks with these statistics.

From libertarian people, I've heard estimates of inflation as high as 8-9% right now. Maybe you think that's an exaggeration, but in any event, I don't at allllll trust the Fed. You can't do QE for year after year and still have very low inflation. It's like saying you can smoke cigarettes for a lifetime and never get sick.

The foreclosure thing, I don't know all the details to know if it's right or wrong from a libertarian viewpoint. I'm just saying, I think house prices will go down further as the foreclosure process drags on. But you're right too, you have to look at your specific market and make a judgment...

[joe]

my mental image of joe is very similar. he is certainly below the age of 25, and there is no way that he supports himself. i expect most of the libertarian nonsense he spews was picked up listening to his father rant about taxes and welfare over the dinner table (joes posts have so little substance, at least ron paul websites include a couple facts).

the starface analogy is actually pretty good, aside from the fact that joe is not full of hate like starface is. even if joe is kind of a naive idiot, i have no doubt that he is a good human being. i do have doubts about starface.

I was born a libertarian :). I just didn't realize it until approximately 2008. 95% of my family is democrats, my parents included.

"Live and let live." "Treat others how you wish to be treated." "Don't touch something that isn't yours." Always seemed obvious to me. It shocked me when I realized that others didn't feel the same.

I am below 25 but I do support myself. I am not full of hate, I try to be a good person. And I think it's you guys who are naive, not me.

I don't know if it's naive, or just taking the easy route. It's easy to feel good about yourself when 95% of the population agrees with you. Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what the problems are, but they are in universal agreement on the solution (the state).

The perks of having a "normal" political ideology:

-You never have to examine the reality of your beliefs (stealing money to get what you want, with the threat of violence). Edit: And in the case of pro-war people, using that violently stolen money to support bloody murder overseas. Double gross.

-You feel like you *are* the government, giving you a sense of control over what is happening (as the politicians lie, cheat, and steal to make themselves rich, and break campaign promises to the point it's become accepted. As millions are murdered overseas and millions rot in prison. As the President can now call Marshall law whenever he wants, assassinate American citizens, and lock us up in Guantanamo Bay without a trial. If this is the will of the voters, you guys have black hearts).

-You think complex social/economic problems can be solved by brute force (laws and police) or central planning (regulators). No thought needed, no analysis needed.. just throw money at the government. Just vote for this guy. Just donate to this guy. Conscience cleared.

And when a libertarian shows up.. call him a naive idiot. 95% of people will agree with you.

But at least I sound like a good person, that is more important to me than sounding intelligent :D

[joe]

Yes it is. Joe talks a lot, but it's just fluff. Not sure he knows anything, or does anything. I suspect he's just some kid in high school who read a Ron Paul website and is trying to sound cool on a basketball site. I highly doubt he has any education, career, etc. Sounds a lot like Starface; bashing left wing and welfare while he lives off his parents with no job.

No career YET, associates degree but left college after Junior year because I wanted work experience and I wasn't comfortable amassing so much debt. Always had high marks and my AD is with honors. I've learned so much more outside of school than I ever did inside of it. And I don't think anything I say sounds cool, the cool people don't talk about this crap that you and I do, DW. They are talking about big screen tv's, blunts, 40's, and bitches.

In High School I did terrible! In High School I was talking about big screen tv's, blunts 40's and bitches. The kids who read political websites in high school were lamezzzz. And I spelled stuff with z's in high school as well. And said wwordddd? High School me would be posting in L Kizzles threads. ;)

[nek1477]

perfect timing for this thread :rockon:

Im a first time homebuyer closing this wensday on a sweet crib. Now is the time to buy if you can afford it :cheers:

[Jailblazers7]

I was born a libertarian :). I just didn't realize it until approximately 2008. 95% of my family is democrats, my parents included.

"Live and let live." "Treat others how you wish to be treated." "Don't touch something that isn't yours." Always seemed obvious to me. It shocked me when I realized that others didn't feel the same.

I am below 25 but I do support myself. I am not full of hate, I try to be a good person. And I think it's you guys who are naive, not me.

I don't know if it's naive, or just taking the easy route. It's easy to feel good about yourself when 95% of the population agrees with you. Republicans and Democrats may disagree on what the problems are, but they are in universal agreement on the solution (the state).

The perks of having a "normal" political ideology:

-You never have to examine the reality of your beliefs (stealing money to get what you want, with the threat of violence). Edit: And in the case of pro-war people, using that violently stolen money to support bloody murder overseas. Double gross.

-You feel like you *are* the government, giving you a sense of control over what is happening (as the politicians lie, cheat, and steal to make themselves rich, and break campaign promises to the point it's become accepted. As millions are murdered overseas and millions rot in prison. As the President can now call Marshall law whenever he wants, assassinate American citizens, and lock us up in Guantanamo Bay without a trial. If this is the will of the voters, you guys have black hearts).

-You think complex social/economic problems can be solved by brute force (laws and police) or central planning (regulators). No thought needed, no analysis needed.. just throw money at the government. Just vote for this guy. Just donate to this guy. Conscience cleared.

And when a libertarian shows up.. call him a naive idiot. 95% of people will agree with you.

But at least I sound like a good person, that is more important to me than sounding intelligent :D

Why do you continue to post BS like this? Yet another post with massive generalizations villifying opposing viewpoints.

You act as if people who see value in the govt support every bill and use of power that Congress has enacted. You believe this, you feel that, you never examine reality, etc. It is hard to have a discussion with you because you are arguing against some ghost of pure govt evil instead of the person you are talking to.

I think you are a good dude and I can appreciate your views because I share some of them but damn you can be ridiculous sometimes. Half the time your posts sound like they are straight from an Ayn Rand novel.

[talkingconch]

Most of the business I do these days is for people buying 2nd and 3rd homes, vacation homes, or investment properties.

The rich are only getting richer... and the poor still can't afford to buy a home... and will forever be renters a.k.a. peasants.

I've seen so many people reach for their goal of home ownership over the past decade, only to fall flat on their faces... and left in a worse position (credit) than when they started.


I hate to sound like a downer, but I'd say maybe 5% of my clients are first-time home owners. The price drop of property/homes isn't opening opportunities for new home owners like the media would have you believe, it's only allowing the financially secure to further increase their wealth.

I also work in property management, and that business is booming. More and more middle-aged and older people being forced into renting because of failed attempts at home ownership.

whats your profession?

explain more on the bold if u will? does that regard renters who can't save for a downpayment?

[talkingconch]

And are prices really expected to start climbing by 1st quarter of next year?

I mean what if you expect to buy by late next year or so

[joe]

Why do you continue to post BS like this? Yet another post with massive generalizations villifying opposing viewpoints.

You act as if people who see value in the govt support every bill and use of power that Congress has enacted. You believe this, you feel that, you never examine reality, etc. It is hard to have a discussion with you because you are arguing against some ghost of pure govt evil instead of the person you are talking to.

I think you are a good dude and I can appreciate your views because I share some of them but damn you can be ridiculous sometimes. Half the time your posts sound like they are straight from an Ayn Rand novel.

Sent you a PM NUKKA.... :pimp:

[-p.tiddy-]

Home sales surge in April

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/22/real_estate/home-sales/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3



NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The housing market surged in April, with home affordability at record levels.

Sales hit 4.62 million homes during the month on an annualized basis, a rise of 3.4% compared with a month earlier and up 10% from April 2011, according to the National Association of Realtors.

NAR reported that the median price for homes sold during the month was $177,400. That's a jump of more than 10% compared with a year earlier.


time is up

home prices now rising

[KevinNYC]

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Rate-on-30-year-mortgage-falls-to-record-3-66-pct-3651979.php


The average U.S. rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage fell this week to a record low for the seventh time in eight weeks. Cheap mortgages have helped drive a modest recovery in the weak housing market this year.
Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday that the average on the 30-year loan dropped to 3.66 percent. That's down from 3.71 percent last week and the lowest since long-term mortgages began in the 1950s.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Rate-on-30-year-mortgage-falls-to-record-3-66-pct-3651979.php
damn...it isn't stopping