Cleveland Buck;1101577 wrote:When interest rates are 1% it looks really profitable to build a bunch of houses, but even the mighty central planners can't fill them all.

It's like when the Soviets would force people to make concrete and tanks and missiles when their people were starving to death. Maybe the government shouldn't decide what gets produced in the economy.

I would agree that for the most part. I think there are some developing industries where it makes sense to provide incentives but markets like housing or something corn production are so established that there really aren't any arguments for subsidies and such.

sjmvsfscs08;1101582 wrote:The government should stop promoting sprawl this instant. It's draining an endless amount of money from our economy.

The government should stop promoting anything. Everything they touch is a disaster.

sjmvsfscs08;1101581 wrote:I read an article the other day that said something like 7% of homes are vacant, and .25% of people are homeless. That doesn't add up...

(Yes, I know they're homeless because of addictions, but the point is still pretty crazy)

As a planning student, it's pretty much accepted as fact by our department that the housing situation will never be the same, ever. The housing boom will be the end of the age of the suburbs. My former roommate moved into a house that his wife's uncle was trying to sell for $850,000 in Grove City. He doesn't have a penny to his name, but lived in a mansion because the market was so pathetic. "That shit cray."

This is true. People are usually pretty slow on the uptake with that sort of thing. Happens every time a major industry becomes not as major anymore.

Cleveland Buck;1101587 wrote:The government should stop promoting anything. Everything they touch is a disaster.

If they would just protect us and let us run our own economy we would be much better off.

dwccrew;1101244 wrote:I'm pretty sure Bush was the president when the first bailout of Wall St. occured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Yep. Score one for you as TARP was indeed started under Bush. Some other interesting facts to consider:

1. Was TARP completely spent prior to 1-20-2009? Which administration spent the rest of it?
2. Did President Sotero, then a U.S. senator, vote for the passage of TARP?
3. Contrary to what the DNC says, Bush is not running for President in 2012. Barry is, however. Whom should Wall Street send their campaign checks to, Barry or Bush?
4. None of the remaining Republicans are for future bailouts. Barry is, however. Whom should Wall Street send their campaign checks to, Barry or the Republican nominee?

Wall Street can only fund one candidate for the 2012 Presidential election if they want mo money..mo money..mo money to save them should they fail again.

You guys act like the bailouts were some sort of windfall for the Wall St fat cats. Reality is those guys lost vast amounts of their personal fortunes in the meltdown (just ask the guys with Lehman and Bear), so the bailout hardly creates any real incentive to continue with the risk taking - the "incentive" issue here is not the bailout but Wall St comp and bonus structures. The economics argument against bailouts is not really one of incentive but primarily about propping-up a failing industry and preventing those resources from flowing to other sectors where they could create more value. Certainly financial services have sucked-up a good amount of talent and brains, people who might otherwise being very productive and add a lot value in other industries.

sjmvsfscs08;1101581 wrote:I read an article the other day that said something like 7% of homes are vacant, and .25% of people are homeless. That doesn't add up...

I don't know the exact numbers, and there seems to be a variety of methodologies used to produce quite varying estimates.

What I do know is at it's peak home ownership hit an all-time high of 69%. Throughout the 80's and early 90's, this number hovered pretty closely around 64%. That 5% gap represents approximately 6.5-7M units, maybe more. Note, however, that doesn't tell us anything about supply - during the boom many would-be rental were being bought by homeowners (there's theoretically no difference in supply if you buy or instead rent from an investor).

Supply in 2007 (3 years after the peak ownership number in 2004) was approx. 130M units. That number was maybe about 3M higher in 4Q11 at 132M. Curiously, if you add the rental and housing vacancy rates (the relevant number), you get 13.9% vacancy, translating to @ 12M vacancies (when you remove properties held for seasonal or occasional use). Consider that an 8% rental vacancy rate is relatively healthy - means roughly 1 month to fill an apartment vacated by a renter (and rental rates would indicate it is a healthy demand). The rental market is pretty hot, but apparently not hot enough to spur investors to risk buying more potentially overvalued properties - a lot of what investors are buying seem to be foreclosures yielding 8-10% or more in rental income.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr411/files/q411press.pdf

For some more comparison, in 4Q98 the vacancy number was 9.6% - a number that had been pretty constant since @ 1986, long before the beginnings of any bubble - on 116M units. There was a time in the 70's and early 80's where this number was more often in the 6-7% range.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/qtr498/q498ind.html

Anyway, while there is some inventory bloat, the primary driver would appear to be unemployment/economic. Obviously not everyone out of a job is homeless or moved-in with families and friends (although more SHOULD be happening, but doesn't with overly generous benefits), but 4% below full-employment is effectively the gap from normative vacancy levels (and the economy is certainly discouraging some kids from moving out of their parents house and probably encouraging more roommates going in together).

A big part of the housing oversupply issue goes away (if and when) we get back to stable full employment, but we've got a bit of a chicken/egg problem here.

gut;1101788 wrote:A big part of the housing oversupply issue goes away (if and when) we get back to stable full employment, but we've got a bit of a chicken/egg problem here.

without a doubt

BGFalcons82;1101703 wrote:Wall Street can only fund one candidate for the 2012 Presidential election if they want mo money..mo money..mo money to save them should they fail again.

Wrong. Wall Street always bankrolls both candidates. It's just that they choose to fund one side more than the other...that's all. In 08, Wall Street bankrolled more to Obama. But there is always hedging their bets money. And big money at that.

The Bill of Rights and or Constitution promoted lobbying. But in my estimation, they had no idea what a monster they were creating...in the way it has ballooned over the past 240 years.

Manhattan Buckeye;1101049 wrote:I take it you don't own a house. If every American votes based on your criteria not only will BO lose in a landslide, he would have been impeached already. My wife and I have slightly higher incomes than we did in '08, but not enough to keep up with inflation, and the brutal beatings we've taken on our two homes far exceed any gains in stock.

There are very few Americans better off now than they were four years ago, particularly the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs which won't be coming back that the media underplays.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have owned homes (three of them) since 1977. The only way I can imagine anyone "taking a beating" on their home is if they took a loss trying to sell it. I have no intentions of selling in the near future, so I am doing well. The investments I have made since retirement have enabled me to live comfortably, but within modest means. Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule, but other than the rising cost of health care I'm happy with my current situation.

stlouiedipalma;1102728 wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have owned homes (three of them) since 1977. The only way I can imagine anyone "taking a beating" on their home is if they took a loss trying to sell it. I have no intentions of selling in the near future, so I am doing well. The investments I have made since retirement have enabled me to live comfortably, but within modest means. Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule, but other than the rising cost of health care I'm happy with my current situation.

I liken it to when people bought tech stock in the 90's and then that bubble burst. The housing market is the same way. People bought when #s were artificially inflated. Now the value of homes are coming back to reality, just like stocks from the 90's. The market will take awhile to rebound, but it won't ever get to were it was 5-6 years ago.

Willard has just been busted.

A 2009 Op-Ed he wrote has been unearthed in which he advocated the Massachusettes mandate as a way to fix our national healthcare.

So much for his excuse about it being a "states rights" thing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-advice-for-obamacare-look-at-romney

IggyPride00;1103478 wrote:Willard has just been busted.

A 2009 Op-Ed he wrote has been unearthed in which he advocated the Massachusettes mandate as a way to fix our national healthcare.

So much for his excuse about it being a "states rights" thing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-advice-for-obamacare-look-at-romney

He'll find some way to deny it, just like his record speed flip-flop yesterday on his stand on the Blunt-Rubio amendment to the Transportation bill.

dwccrew;1103289 wrote:The market will take awhile to rebound, but it won't ever get to were it was 5-6 years ago.

Ehhh, actually if you're talking 2004-2005, that would be about fair value today. If you go back to the late 90's before the inflating of the bubble, and then take into account inflation (which housing prices have historically tracked), you'd be around 2004 prices at this point. But the sell-off has us closer to 2001 prices. At this point it's mostly a demand issue beaten down by high unemployment numbers and a lot of investors, but more potential homeowners, sitting on their hands because of lack of certainty and stability. The illiquid and sticky nature of home ownership also means demand is arbitrarily lower from lack of buyers who would normally be looking to trade-up but are stuck with underwater mortgages.

But, yeah, if you're talking about double-digit annual gains in value, that is a long ways off, if ever. But if and when the default overhang clears prices should resume tracking inflation.

Santorum and Romney basically tied in Ohio:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/2012_ohio_republican_primary

I'm wondering how long before Newt drops out. Besides Georgia, I don't see many other states where his poll numbers are above the teens. If I'm a wealthy Romney supporter, I'm sending Newt some cash to keep the anti-Romney vote split.

Romney's momentum and lead may be so big after Super Tuesday that it won't matter.

Romney's op-ed in the Dispatch today - http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/03/05/u-s--can-be-energy-superpower.html

He's just like Obama? Hmmm -

While the president now professes a combination of innocence and helplessness in the face of rising prices, the truth is that expensive energy was his plan all along. He said his proposals would cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.” He suggested we “bankrupt” the coal industry. His secretary of Energy wanted to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline.” His secretary of the Interior declared he would oppose drilling even if gasoline reached $10 per gallon.

After reading his article, I can't find anything with which I disagree.

Lol read the comments.

Ohio, for the sake of all humanity, vote for Romney or Paul.
The other two are just idiots.

ptown_trojans_1;1106417 wrote:Ohio, for the sake of all humanity, vote for Paul.
The other two are just idiots and one is a damned robot.

FIFY

ptown_trojans_1;1106417 wrote:Ohio, for the sake of all humanity, vote for Romney or Paul.
The other two are just idiots.

Why should the Democrats have all the fun?

I Wear Pants;1106599 wrote:FIFY

Why did Paul not campaign at all in Ohio?

WebFire;1106645 wrote:Why did Paul not campaign at all in Ohio?

This is why I've decided to not vote for him.

WebFire;1106645 wrote:Why did Paul not campaign at all in Ohio?

Just a guess, but Paul is going for delegates, so I think he pretty much knew Ohio was too moderate for his liking. He's campaigning in states in which he is more confident he'll pick up delegates.

Also, looked it up and see that if any canidate in Ohio takes 50% of the vote it becomes a winner-take-all state. Maybe because of Ohio's moderate leaning, Dr. Paul feels Romney will win the entire state and felt it wasn't worth time to campaign in a state in which he wouldn't receive any delegates at all. Just a guess

dwccrew;1106660 wrote:Just a guess, but Paul is going for delegates, so I think he pretty much knew Ohio was too moderate for his liking. He's campaigning in states in which he is more confident he'll pick up delegates.

Also, looked it up and see that if any canidate in Ohio takes 50% of the vote it becomes a winner-take-all state. Maybe because of Ohio's moderate leaning, Dr. Paul feels Romney will win the entire state and felt it wasn't worth time to campaign in a state in which he wouldn't receive any delegates at all. Just a guess

Probably correct. He is definitely going the delegate route.