|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint.
I understand why you would think that but well, since the post directly after you is xDaunt proving my point I will simple let his example speak for me.
And for the record I'm with you that its mostly Republicans to blame for this but I don't live in the US so when it comes to the consequences of this obstructionism I had no say and I still believe your underestimating the amount of blindness as a consequence of limited news sources.
|
by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare.
Well golly gee, all he had to do is let the other party write one of his most important pieces of legislation for him then they would of voted for it huh? Like, are you serious with that?
Oh and of course once he let them write it then they would of voted for stuff he wanted that they didn't write... I think the whole "Obama alienated republicans" is obviously bullshit, but this is the first time I have heard this non-sense about if only he let them write the healthcare law then they would not be obstructing everything else...
|
On July 18 2014 01:11 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:42 farvacola wrote:On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter. Luckily, the annals of history aren't written solely by hawkish conservatives who were oh so certain that Romney had the election clinched. That Republicans would have worked alongside Obama in the creation of Obamacare is pure delusion. Ofc the republicans could have helped, but Obamacare would not have been so drastic, healthcare reform has been an issue for a long time. But 1 american soldier for 5 top terrorists is always a good trade, black hawk down, (leave no man behind.)
Top terrorists? Most of the people where part of what was afghanistan's legitimate government. These people weren't going to be tried.
|
Obama to speak in a few min.
|
|
|
On July 17 2014 15:11 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! ![[image loading]](http://www.worldeconomics.com/Images/CMS/LoadedContent/Papers/WE/7c66ffca-ff86-4e4c-979d-7c5d7a22ef21_201405_C02.jpg) SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit. So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months. So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back: This post linking to this blog which says Show nested quote +And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money? "Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post "High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." PostBut here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health?
Yes, Q1 was shitty but the expectation is for a Q2 bounce back. If you look at monthly job data, we've been adding jobs faster this year than last. Given that, it would be very surprising if we were in a recession. Doubly surprising since inflation has been staging a comeback.
House prices are, in fact, going up:
New York, June 24, 2014 – Data through April 2014, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the 10-City and 20-City Composites posted annual gains of 10.8%. Source
Zillow has a price breakdown by tier:
+ Show Spoiler +
New housing starts are up as well (yoy):
Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 893,000. This is 9.3 percent (±10.3%)* below the revised May estimate of 985,000, but is 7.5 percent (±14.4%)* above the June 2013 rate of 831,000. Source
Don't forget your own arguments. You were previously arguing that a subset of the housing market wasn't doing well by the standard of house prices. I don't recall exactly what your source was pointing to (regional?). But what really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that we're building more houses. There's also plenty of room for even more construction.
Now, my previous point about house prices not being important was related to the argument you were making and not to housing construction specifically. Housing prices can, and do affect construction, but you were making a point about household wealth. In that context, the value of houses isn't particularly important.
|
On July 18 2014 01:07 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter. I'm not here to defend Obama's every move. I'm merely pointing out that Republican electoral politics has shifted to the right. That's not a controversial statement. It's this shift which is responsible for the current policy of Republican obstructionism. You could argue that Obama's specific policies are directly responsible for this shift, but honestly that's pretty far-fetched. Voters tend not to pay that close attention. Anyways, I didn't say Obama bares no blame at all, that is indeed kind of ridiculous. I said he bares little blame in relation to Congress (and the redistricting that has made primaries more important than general elections). People with strong policy opinions tend to place far too much emphasis on policy. Electoral politics is far more dependent on rhetoric and demographics. You'll have to do better than sweep aside claims of media bias with your right hand, and with your left say nothing you're asserting is open to questioning. Your modern American liberal, establishment Republicans, and some percentage of independents that make the claims you make. Consider Democrats now used to getting their way on things, advancing policies lurching to the left (in American context), unwilling to compromise with anyone who hasn't shifted with them. They think a compliant media will shift blame to the Republicans when they don't get 90% of what they want, so they're rewarded for dreaming big.
On the flip side, the electorate is pissed off at out-of-touch politicians that promised them their same doctors, a secure border, and won't stand by their views when they aren't also popular on the Hill. You'd better believe they'll oppose policies if they fear getting tossed out on their backside for not representing their base. If you've spent all this time presenting your ideas for fixing the pressing issues, and convince enough people that they're the best plan amongst several, maybe I you don't abandon it all in Washington and stick to your guns. If obstructionist is the new parroted line, maybe they'd prefer men and women who stand for nothing and let the party opposed roll every piece of legislation over their prone bodies.
|
On July 18 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 15:11 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit. So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months. So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back: This post linking to this blog which says And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money? "Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post "High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." PostBut here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health? Yes, Q1 was shitty but the expectation is for a Q2 bounce back. If you look at monthly job data, we've been adding jobs faster this year than last. Given that, it would be very surprising if we were in a recession. Doubly surprising since inflation has been staging a comeback. House prices are, in fact, going up: Show nested quote +New York, June 24, 2014 – Data through April 2014, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the 10-City and 20-City Composites posted annual gains of 10.8%. SourceZillow has a price breakdown by tier: + Show Spoiler +New housing starts are up as well (yoy): Show nested quote +Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 893,000. This is 9.3 percent (±10.3%)* below the revised May estimate of 985,000, but is 7.5 percent (±14.4%)* above the June 2013 rate of 831,000. SourceDon't forget your own arguments. You were previously arguing that a subset of the housing market wasn't doing well by the standard of house prices. I don't recall exactly what your source was pointing to (regional?). But what really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that we're building more houses. There's also plenty of room for even more construction. Now, my previous point about house prices not being important was related to the argument you were making and not to housing construction specifically. Housing prices can, and do affect construction, but you were making a point about household wealth. In that context, the value of houses isn't particularly important.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/housing-falters-as-forecasters-see-u-s-sales-dropping.html
Three major housing forecasters -- MBA and government-run mortgage financiers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- began the year projecting an average home-sale gain of 10 percent in 2014.
In May, after monthly reductions in their estimates, Fannie Mae and MBA for the first time projected an annual decline, amounting to less than one percent.
Freddie Mac this week lowered its 2014 home sales forecast to 5.4 million -- a 1.8 percent drop from 2013. The company also cut its prediction on mortgage lending volume for purchases to about $751 billion.
It's funny that you are still so confident in the forecasts even as you cite the latest statistic that new housing development has been revised downwards and is further down in June than projected. Your optimism is indefatigable. What really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that the houses we are building eventually get bought and used by people, and that they retain their value. Otherwise the wealth is lost in the next crisis. All the signs up to now indicate that the less-than-expected new construction is a speculative bubble. The great mass of Americans can't afford these homes. A sizable percentage of home purchases are being made by investors hoping to flip the house for a profit. This pushes prices up and creates a bubble. And if you haven't noticed, the very rich don't need to buy 50 homes on a tree-less lot in the middle of Pennsylvania or out in New Mexico.
|
House prices are going up because rates are still at the floor.
The payment on a $250,000 home @ 8.5% in 2000 is the same payment today in 2014 on a $400,000 home @ 4.16%.
=+PMT(0.085/12,360,250000,0) = $1922
=+PMT(0.0416/12,360,400000,0) = $1946
http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm
Rates go up...it's all over.
|
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — An aide to Gov. Chris Christie says she texted him her thoughts about testimony on the closure of traffic lanes near the George Washington Bridge but later deleted the messages.
The aide, Regina Egea (eh-JEE'-uh), testified Thursday before lawmakers who continue to probe the lane closures, which appear to have been politically motivated.
She says she was inconsistent with which texts she kept and which she deleted. She says she believes the dumped the messages before the story erupted into a major distraction for Christie but can't be certain.
Egea says some of the messages complimented a Port Authority of New York and New Jersey employee for his "professionalism" testimony on Dec. 9.
Source
|
On July 18 2014 05:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 15:11 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit. So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months. So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back: This post linking to this blog which says And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money? "Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post "High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." PostBut here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health? Yes, Q1 was shitty but the expectation is for a Q2 bounce back. If you look at monthly job data, we've been adding jobs faster this year than last. Given that, it would be very surprising if we were in a recession. Doubly surprising since inflation has been staging a comeback. House prices are, in fact, going up: New York, June 24, 2014 – Data through April 2014, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the 10-City and 20-City Composites posted annual gains of 10.8%. SourceZillow has a price breakdown by tier: + Show Spoiler +New housing starts are up as well (yoy): Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 893,000. This is 9.3 percent (±10.3%)* below the revised May estimate of 985,000, but is 7.5 percent (±14.4%)* above the June 2013 rate of 831,000. SourceDon't forget your own arguments. You were previously arguing that a subset of the housing market wasn't doing well by the standard of house prices. I don't recall exactly what your source was pointing to (regional?). But what really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that we're building more houses. There's also plenty of room for even more construction. Now, my previous point about house prices not being important was related to the argument you were making and not to housing construction specifically. Housing prices can, and do affect construction, but you were making a point about household wealth. In that context, the value of houses isn't particularly important. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/housing-falters-as-forecasters-see-u-s-sales-dropping.htmlShow nested quote +Three major housing forecasters -- MBA and government-run mortgage financiers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- began the year projecting an average home-sale gain of 10 percent in 2014.
In May, after monthly reductions in their estimates, Fannie Mae and MBA for the first time projected an annual decline, amounting to less than one percent.
Freddie Mac this week lowered its 2014 home sales forecast to 5.4 million -- a 1.8 percent drop from 2013. The company also cut its prediction on mortgage lending volume for purchases to about $751 billion. It's funny that you are still so confident in the forecasts even as you cite the latest statistic that new housing development has been revised downwards and is further down in June than projected. Your optimism is indefatigable. What really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that the houses we are building eventually get bought and used by people, and that they retain their value. Otherwise the wealth is lost in the next crisis. All the signs up to now indicate that the less-than-expected new construction is a speculative bubble. The great mass of Americans can't afford these homes. A sizable percentage of home purchases are being made by investors hoping to flip the house for a profit. This pushes prices up and creates a bubble. And if you haven't noticed, the very rich don't need to buy 50 homes on a tree-less lot in the middle of Pennsylvania or out in New Mexico.
Again, what matters is that new homes are being constructed. If you want to confirm that the construction is warranted you look to new home sales and / or housing inventory.
What you've cited is new and existing home sales. Here's just new home sales:
Sales of new single-family houses in May 2014 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 504,000, according to
estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This
is 18.6 percent (±17.3%) above the revised April rate of 425,000 and is 16.9 percent (±19.6%)* above the May 2013
estimate of 431,000. ...
This represents a supply of 4.5 months at the current sales rate.
Source
Edit: To point it out, 4.5 months supply is low by historical standards
.
For the whole YTD new home sales are only slightly up yoy, but that's in line with the Q1 slump and subsequent rebound story.
As for your comment about investors, last I heard they're buying to rent out and not buying to flip.
To your comment on prices, current prices are in line with historical norms. Given how low rates are prices are, if anything, under priced.
|
On July 18 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 05:14 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 15:11 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit. So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months. So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back: This post linking to this blog which says And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money? "Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post "High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." PostBut here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health? Yes, Q1 was shitty but the expectation is for a Q2 bounce back. If you look at monthly job data, we've been adding jobs faster this year than last. Given that, it would be very surprising if we were in a recession. Doubly surprising since inflation has been staging a comeback. House prices are, in fact, going up: New York, June 24, 2014 – Data through April 2014, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the 10-City and 20-City Composites posted annual gains of 10.8%. SourceZillow has a price breakdown by tier: + Show Spoiler +New housing starts are up as well (yoy): Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 893,000. This is 9.3 percent (±10.3%)* below the revised May estimate of 985,000, but is 7.5 percent (±14.4%)* above the June 2013 rate of 831,000. SourceDon't forget your own arguments. You were previously arguing that a subset of the housing market wasn't doing well by the standard of house prices. I don't recall exactly what your source was pointing to (regional?). But what really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that we're building more houses. There's also plenty of room for even more construction. Now, my previous point about house prices not being important was related to the argument you were making and not to housing construction specifically. Housing prices can, and do affect construction, but you were making a point about household wealth. In that context, the value of houses isn't particularly important. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/housing-falters-as-forecasters-see-u-s-sales-dropping.htmlThree major housing forecasters -- MBA and government-run mortgage financiers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- began the year projecting an average home-sale gain of 10 percent in 2014.
In May, after monthly reductions in their estimates, Fannie Mae and MBA for the first time projected an annual decline, amounting to less than one percent.
Freddie Mac this week lowered its 2014 home sales forecast to 5.4 million -- a 1.8 percent drop from 2013. The company also cut its prediction on mortgage lending volume for purchases to about $751 billion. It's funny that you are still so confident in the forecasts even as you cite the latest statistic that new housing development has been revised downwards and is further down in June than projected. Your optimism is indefatigable. What really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that the houses we are building eventually get bought and used by people, and that they retain their value. Otherwise the wealth is lost in the next crisis. All the signs up to now indicate that the less-than-expected new construction is a speculative bubble. The great mass of Americans can't afford these homes. A sizable percentage of home purchases are being made by investors hoping to flip the house for a profit. This pushes prices up and creates a bubble. And if you haven't noticed, the very rich don't need to buy 50 homes on a tree-less lot in the middle of Pennsylvania or out in New Mexico. Again, what matters is that new homes are being constructed. If you want to confirm that the construction is warranted you look to new home sales and / or housing inventory. What you've cited is new and existing home sales. Here's just new home sales: Show nested quote +Sales of new single-family houses in May 2014 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 504,000, according to
estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This
is 18.6 percent (±17.3%) above the revised April rate of 425,000 and is 16.9 percent (±19.6%)* above the May 2013
estimate of 431,000. ...
This represents a supply of 4.5 months at the current sales rate. SourceEdit: To point it out, 4.5 months supply is low by historical standards . For the whole YTD new home sales are only slightly up yoy, but that's in line with the Q1 slump and subsequent rebound story. As for your comment about investors, last I heard they're buying to rent out and not buying to flip. To your comment on prices, current prices are in line with historical norms. Given how low rates are prices are, if anything, under priced.
Rent prices not going up very much. No one can pay for higher rent. Given how low the rates are, you might say it's surprising the "recovery" is nothing but projections and expectations that are being revised down.
|
On July 18 2014 08:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 18 2014 05:14 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2014 03:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 15:11 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. [quote] I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit. So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months. So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back: This post linking to this blog which says And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades. There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money? "Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post "High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." PostBut here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health? Yes, Q1 was shitty but the expectation is for a Q2 bounce back. If you look at monthly job data, we've been adding jobs faster this year than last. Given that, it would be very surprising if we were in a recession. Doubly surprising since inflation has been staging a comeback. House prices are, in fact, going up: New York, June 24, 2014 – Data through April 2014, released today by S&P Dow Jones Indices for its S&P/Case-Shiller1 Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show that the 10-City and 20-City Composites posted annual gains of 10.8%. SourceZillow has a price breakdown by tier: + Show Spoiler +New housing starts are up as well (yoy): Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 893,000. This is 9.3 percent (±10.3%)* below the revised May estimate of 985,000, but is 7.5 percent (±14.4%)* above the June 2013 rate of 831,000. SourceDon't forget your own arguments. You were previously arguing that a subset of the housing market wasn't doing well by the standard of house prices. I don't recall exactly what your source was pointing to (regional?). But what really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that we're building more houses. There's also plenty of room for even more construction. Now, my previous point about house prices not being important was related to the argument you were making and not to housing construction specifically. Housing prices can, and do affect construction, but you were making a point about household wealth. In that context, the value of houses isn't particularly important. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/housing-falters-as-forecasters-see-u-s-sales-dropping.htmlThree major housing forecasters -- MBA and government-run mortgage financiers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- began the year projecting an average home-sale gain of 10 percent in 2014.
In May, after monthly reductions in their estimates, Fannie Mae and MBA for the first time projected an annual decline, amounting to less than one percent.
Freddie Mac this week lowered its 2014 home sales forecast to 5.4 million -- a 1.8 percent drop from 2013. The company also cut its prediction on mortgage lending volume for purchases to about $751 billion. It's funny that you are still so confident in the forecasts even as you cite the latest statistic that new housing development has been revised downwards and is further down in June than projected. Your optimism is indefatigable. What really matters as far as GDP and employment is concerned is that the houses we are building eventually get bought and used by people, and that they retain their value. Otherwise the wealth is lost in the next crisis. All the signs up to now indicate that the less-than-expected new construction is a speculative bubble. The great mass of Americans can't afford these homes. A sizable percentage of home purchases are being made by investors hoping to flip the house for a profit. This pushes prices up and creates a bubble. And if you haven't noticed, the very rich don't need to buy 50 homes on a tree-less lot in the middle of Pennsylvania or out in New Mexico. Again, what matters is that new homes are being constructed. If you want to confirm that the construction is warranted you look to new home sales and / or housing inventory. What you've cited is new and existing home sales. Here's just new home sales: Sales of new single-family houses in May 2014 were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 504,000, according to
estimates released jointly today by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This
is 18.6 percent (±17.3%) above the revised April rate of 425,000 and is 16.9 percent (±19.6%)* above the May 2013
estimate of 431,000. ...
This represents a supply of 4.5 months at the current sales rate. SourceEdit: To point it out, 4.5 months supply is low by historical standards . For the whole YTD new home sales are only slightly up yoy, but that's in line with the Q1 slump and subsequent rebound story. As for your comment about investors, last I heard they're buying to rent out and not buying to flip. To your comment on prices, current prices are in line with historical norms. Given how low rates are prices are, if anything, under priced. Rent prices not going up very much. No one can pay for higher rent. Given how low the rates are, you might say it's surprising the "recovery" is nothing but projections and expectations that are being revised down.
I thought people were complaining that the rent was already too damn high? Did you want rent to go up more? Not sure what your point is here. Rent increases have been respectable and they don't need to be spectacular to make buy to let work.
I don't see why you think there is no housing recovery. Prices are up, construction is up, sales are up, inventory is low... what's the problem?
|
On July 18 2014 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Well golly gee, all he had to do is let the other party write one of his most important pieces of legislation for him then they would of voted for it huh? Like, are you serious with that? Oh and of course once he let them write it then they would of voted for stuff he wanted that they didn't write... I think the whole "Obama alienated republicans" is obviously bullshit, but this is the first time I have heard this non-sense about if only he let them write the healthcare law then they would not be obstructing everything else...
Republicans pretty much did write Obamacare. It's called Romneycare in Massachusetts and is generally well liked. Don't forget that Obamacare is basically the Heritage Foundation plan from two decades ago. They're just mad that he's taking credit for their idea.
Oh yeah, Republicans filibuster their own bills, in case you guys forgot that.
|
Sen. Ted Cruz intends to use a bill mitigating the humanitarian crisis at the border to push for the deportation of undocumented youth who have been in the country for years, a move that is inflaming the already rancorous immigration debate.
The Texas Republican will fight to attach language to the bill calling for an end to President Barack Obama's program to defer deportation for qualified young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children (known as DACA), his office tells TPM.
"We are focused on ensuring that DACA is stopped and working with colleagues to make that happen," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an email. "DACA overall is terrible policy. The senator wants to stop it."
Notably, Cruz isn't pushing to deport those who have already benefited from DACA, but rather will seek to make sure no one else can qualify for it. "We want to stop people from getting DACA now. Anyone who hasn't been granted, should not be moving forward. And it shouldn't be expanded," Frazier said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lambasted the intentions of the "junior senator from Texas" on Thursday morning.
"Before Republicans help our Border Patrol agents address this humanitarian crisis, they want President Obama to deport the Dreamers who are already living here. These are children, but instead of considering a thoughtful, compassionate solution to a real-life crisis, radical Republicans would rather hold these kids ransom," he said on the Senate floor. "These children are real – real human beings. They should not be used as pawns in Republicans’ high-stakes game of chicken with President Obama."
Source
|
On July 18 2014 10:51 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. Well golly gee, all he had to do is let the other party write one of his most important pieces of legislation for him then they would of voted for it huh? Like, are you serious with that? Oh and of course once he let them write it then they would of voted for stuff he wanted that they didn't write... I think the whole "Obama alienated republicans" is obviously bullshit, but this is the first time I have heard this non-sense about if only he let them write the healthcare law then they would not be obstructing everything else... Republicans pretty much did write Obamacare. It's called Romneycare in Massachusetts and is generally well liked. Don't forget that Obamacare is basically the Heritage Foundation plan from two decades ago. They're just mad that he's taking credit for their idea. Oh yeah, Republicans filibuster their own bills, in case you guys forgot that.
Does the US have the same problem as Hong Kong with massive amount of submissions? This to block the flow and thus filibuster prior to something being put up for vote.
http://legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/fc/fc/papers/fc0222fc-104-1-e.pdf 1.9 million amendments in ~1 month.
|
On July 18 2014 12:12 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 10:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On July 18 2014 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. Well golly gee, all he had to do is let the other party write one of his most important pieces of legislation for him then they would of voted for it huh? Like, are you serious with that? Oh and of course once he let them write it then they would of voted for stuff he wanted that they didn't write... I think the whole "Obama alienated republicans" is obviously bullshit, but this is the first time I have heard this non-sense about if only he let them write the healthcare law then they would not be obstructing everything else... Republicans pretty much did write Obamacare. It's called Romneycare in Massachusetts and is generally well liked. Don't forget that Obamacare is basically the Heritage Foundation plan from two decades ago. They're just mad that he's taking credit for their idea. Oh yeah, Republicans filibuster their own bills, in case you guys forgot that. Does the US have the same problem as Hong Kong with massive amount of submissions? This to block the flow and thus filibuster prior to something being put up for vote. http://legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/fc/fc/papers/fc0222fc-104-1-e.pdf 1.9 million amendments in ~1 month.
No the GOP's problem is that a Democrat is in the White House. If they allow passages of bills/laws then the economy improves and then they can never get back in power in the Senate and slowly but surely lose the house. Thus they can't have any improvement whatsoever to the country.
|
On July 18 2014 12:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 12:12 Yurie wrote:On July 18 2014 10:51 SnipedSoul wrote:On July 18 2014 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. Well golly gee, all he had to do is let the other party write one of his most important pieces of legislation for him then they would of voted for it huh? Like, are you serious with that? Oh and of course once he let them write it then they would of voted for stuff he wanted that they didn't write... I think the whole "Obama alienated republicans" is obviously bullshit, but this is the first time I have heard this non-sense about if only he let them write the healthcare law then they would not be obstructing everything else... Republicans pretty much did write Obamacare. It's called Romneycare in Massachusetts and is generally well liked. Don't forget that Obamacare is basically the Heritage Foundation plan from two decades ago. They're just mad that he's taking credit for their idea. Oh yeah, Republicans filibuster their own bills, in case you guys forgot that. Does the US have the same problem as Hong Kong with massive amount of submissions? This to block the flow and thus filibuster prior to something being put up for vote. http://legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/fc/fc/papers/fc0222fc-104-1-e.pdf 1.9 million amendments in ~1 month. No the GOP's problem is that a Democrat is in the White House. If they allow passages of bills/laws then the economy improves and then they can never get back in power in the Senate and slowly but surely lose the house. Thus they can't have any improvement whatsoever to the country.
The economy was saved by the democrats and obama, next question please. Everyone blames the other party, instead of actually doing things like screwing interns and fucking over the common man.
|
On July 18 2014 00:49 Nyxisto wrote:
Some few million people have healthcare now which is at least something I guess. At least it's better then starting two wars and being unable to spell the word nuclear
You're totally right. Buying a puppy is definitely preferable to cutting your arm off with a chainsaw.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 18 2014 11:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Ted Cruz intends to use a bill mitigating the humanitarian crisis at the border to push for the deportation of undocumented youth who have been in the country for years, a move that is inflaming the already rancorous immigration debate.
The Texas Republican will fight to attach language to the bill calling for an end to President Barack Obama's program to defer deportation for qualified young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children (known as DACA), his office tells TPM.
"We are focused on ensuring that DACA is stopped and working with colleagues to make that happen," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in an email. "DACA overall is terrible policy. The senator wants to stop it."
Notably, Cruz isn't pushing to deport those who have already benefited from DACA, but rather will seek to make sure no one else can qualify for it. "We want to stop people from getting DACA now. Anyone who hasn't been granted, should not be moving forward. And it shouldn't be expanded," Frazier said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lambasted the intentions of the "junior senator from Texas" on Thursday morning.
"Before Republicans help our Border Patrol agents address this humanitarian crisis, they want President Obama to deport the Dreamers who are already living here. These are children, but instead of considering a thoughtful, compassionate solution to a real-life crisis, radical Republicans would rather hold these kids ransom," he said on the Senate floor. "These children are real – real human beings. They should not be used as pawns in Republicans’ high-stakes game of chicken with President Obama." Source
The sad thing, Texas is so far up the ass of Fox News that they'll just continue to fall in love with this dumbass and he'll get re-elected. As much as I hate being forced to watch Spanish ads on Hulu and Twitch due to my location, I really hope this state is overrun by Mexican immigrants so we can stop electing politicians that actually believe the ideological shit that flows from the "Tea Party."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn1.blog-media.zillowstatic.com/3/Figure2-28fefb.png)
