Weekend Topic Suggestions!
And send in your housing bubble piccs to:
hbbphotos@gmail.com
The Housing Bubble
Examining the home price boom and its effect on owners, lenders, regulators, realtors and the economy as a whole.
About Me
Name:Ben Jones
Location:Northern Arizona, United States
To donate by mail, or to otherwise contact this blogger, please send emails to: thehousingbubble@gmail.com
PayPal is a secure online payment method which accepts ALL major credit cards.
Links
-
June 2025 M T W T F S S « Sep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Photo Submission: hbbphotos@gmail.com
View the HBB Photo Gallery *updated 4/13/2008
‘Homeownership has long been a vibrant part of achieving the American Dream. But these days owning a home is more like starring in a horror flick. The government should learn from recent experience and take a radical stance: Forget propping up housing. Instead, eliminate taxpayer subsidies for housing.’
‘There’s no question the U.S. tax code is full of special tax provisions that favor housing. Yet in a modern, dynamic high-tech economy, why should homes get preferable tax treatment over stocks and other investments?’
‘The tax break for capital gains on housing was signed into law in 1997. Is it a coincidence that home prices soared 79% in the time between the first quarter of 1997 and the first quarter of 2005, with home prices not just going up but rising at an increasingly rapid rate.’
‘One reason why housing prices hit such stratospheric heights was the potent combination of owners treating homes as an investment, and the capital markets shoveling huge sums of money into real estate…supporting an unprecedented degree of speculation.’
‘The tax code shouldn’t bias investment money to favor one kind of investment over another—certainly not in an intensely competitive global economy. Let the economic fundamentals dictate where investors place their financial bets on the future.’
why not eliminate all subsidies ?
all create failure
‘Let the economic fundamentals dictate where investors place their financial bets on the future.’
Show me a politician who follows that philosophy, and I will show you a politician with poor election prospects.
I disagree. The housing bubble has created a huge distortion in the economy that everyone can see now. These are real problems that IMO demand action. I have been suggesting that economic problems will take over concerns about house prices, and that seems to be increasingly likely.
As new proposals are made, other things will have to go and relatively recent laws like the cap gains deal, etc will be eyed for cuts. Think about it; with the market in the tank, what good are ‘gains’ exemptions anyway?
with the market in the tank, what good are ‘gains’ exemptions anyway? I strongly suspect someone will benefit from the ‘gains’ exemptions whatever the market does.
Hope you are right.
Default on Fannie and Freddie debt. Start up new GSE’s, call them Alfredo and Harriet.
If we bring those GSEs onto the US balance sheet, and provide capital for them, it will cause our sovreign credit rating to be cut.
if no rule of law, or code of tax is established, how will the learned understand how to promote and benefit?
Fundamentals for progress are a function of understanding the code of law,and establishing positions to fully value the income streams. Anticipate the changes that the elected elite would consider a net-benefit to garnering votes and position oneself accordingly.
Well said voz…
The cap gain exemption (500k /2 out of the last 5) came as a trade for the IRS roll over rule…Theory being, by incentivizing a sale vs. a roll over you would generate more revenue…I am not sure if it did or not ?? If you eliminate the 500k exemption, would you replace it with the old roll over rule ?? If not, why would anyone sell unless they were forced to ?? Sell your house, pay a 30% ordinary tax on the gain and go shop for a house with 30% less money ??
Eliminate inflation and your house will almost never sell for more than you paid for it. A used house should always sell for less than a new one. It is a depreciating asset just like a car. It just lasts a little longer. Almost all housingh gains are inflation gains not real gains.
I’m with you — I’m not certain the current provision is a bad one.
It allowed me to stay on the sidelines with my (relatively small) profits in 2005 instead of incentivizing me to jump back into the market, which I most certainly did not want to do.
The older rollover provision created more problems, I think.
Eliminate inflation and your house will almost never sell for more than you paid for it ??
Housing is demand driven….Find the least demand (Detroit) and you find the least appreciation…On the other hand, find the strong demand (Carmel Ca.) and you find the most appreciation…Both have Relatively the same “inflation” rate….
Eliminate inflation and your house will almost never sell for more than you paid for it. A used house should always sell for less than a new one. It is a depreciating asset just like a car. It
Why will anyone want to pay more for a house that is poorly built even though it is brand new?
I understand upgrades,electric insulation etc, but the bulk of homes built in the last 7 yrs are built lousily. Made with cheaper products and lack of craftsmanship to shoot as many out as fast as possible.
Just saying…
But if salaries do not keep up with housing prices, we have a Bubble. I get tired of people saying how some place is “special” as if that justifies 5x to 10x prices vs. incomes. Nope - a truly “special” place may have high prices, but it also needs high incomes to support those prices. You can’t eat the scenary, so an unaffordable house with an ocean view is still unaffordable.
unaffordable to whom ??
Why not just index all capital gains to inflation? You should only pay tax on the increased purchasing power. This should handle houses, stocks, bonds, etc.
Buy a house for $100K, 30% inflation later you sell it for $130K, there is now REAL capital gain.
‘There’s no question the U.S. tax code is full of special tax provisions that favor housing. Yet in a modern, dynamic high-tech economy, why should homes get preferable tax treatment over stocks and other investments?’
Investments?
I think that the original idea, flawed though it may have been, was that housing was a basic need, like food, and if housing was owned it gave people a psychological stake in their communities.
The idea that housing is an investment shows where this has gone wrong.
I agree WT…I have long Argued that the interest deduction should be available “Only” to owner occupied residences…This would eliminate pretty much all speculation in the single family residential market…Home builders would not like it though….
To the extent that, say, people who own rental property can deduct interest, it is deductable only against business revenue. Why eliminate that deduction if you continue to allow all other business expense deductions?
I am responding to WT regarding “Investment”….If you want to “justify” the interest deduction for “Home Ownership” AND eliminate “Speculation” in single family homes for “Investment”, then eliminate the tax deduction for non-owner occupied “single family homes”…If you want a “investment” in real estate with the business tax deduction of interest then go buy a multi family property or commercial piece of real estate….
Vibrant? What does that mean? Yard work?
‘The first major change to this gave seniors over the age of 55 a “one-time-capital-gain exclusion” of $250,000, following the concept that seniors who had been in their homes for many years, using their home as their “nest egg” for retirement needed tax forgiveness consideration.’
‘In 1996 this was amended, and provided a capital gain exclusion of $250,000 for single folks and $500,000 for married folks provided they lived in the personal residence two of the last five years. Inherently discriminatory in favor of married couples, this provision failed to take into consideration specific property value, combined income, a host of other factors and instituted a “marriage penalty” for singles.’
“Two of the last five years” basically made real estate speculators out of every buyer. Particularly in a rising market following hard times in the late 1980s and early 1990s.’
The $500k tax exclusion was the main reason we sold our house in el lay, almost 3 years ago…
It was like hitting the lottery, without having to buy a ticket.
You forgot to mention real estate is treated favorably for taxes even for the investors, the people that don’t live in their home. They can 1031 gains into other properties virtually forever without paying any taxes. Once they have you hooked they won’t let you go.
forever ??
What about death ??
I’d vote for death to RE investors >; )
It isn’t the way it worked out, but I’d argue that these provisions should have had the opposite effect.
Prior to 1996 (and aside from the one-time exclusion), in order to be exempted from capital gains on the sale of your home you had to buy another home for more money. That’s why empty nesters and near empty nesters how needed to move would buy “move up” housing instead of downsizing. To me, this provision was a license to downsize, not a license to speculate.
To me the mortgage interest deduction is more of a problem — and, by the way, it is even included under the AMT. Even if one wishes to subsidize the purchase of mortgages, the permitted interest deduction ought to decrease every year after purchase as the loan is (or should be) paid off. Otherwise you aren’t subsidizing homeownership, you are subsidizing hummers, cruises and plasma screens.
Arn’t there tracking rules for financing over basis ??
‘In 1996 this was amended,…”
There was a Republican president at the time, right???
Nope, but there is now, right???
Tax/revenue bills are initiated in the House of Representitives. In 1996, the political majority of the House was…
And the head of the Federal Reserve was…
And from 2002 until November 2006, the political majority of the House was . . .?
“And the head of the Federal Reserve was… “
Alan Greenspan, originally a Reagan appointee, who was subsequently re-appointed by not only Clinton but two more Republican administrations.
Anymore questions?
‘In 1996 this was amended,…”
There was a Republican president at the time, right???
Congress/Senate was majority republican since 94,
right???
Yard work? I have a wife and two sons. F yard work, let them do it.
Roidy
Another good reason I sold my Townhouse, I figured this every two year 250K to 500K tax break was going to get axed. I believe it really distorted the housing market and needs to go away.
This is a great topic:
“How I got mine, and why the benefit should not apply in the future.”
Those born after 1958 or so have tended to be on the other end of that one. Not with the mortgage interest deduction, however. We paid off our loan so it can be eliminated now.
If this “benefit” continues into the future, it will insure us of 2 classes of people: speculators and renters - that’s it.
..But these days owning a home is more like starring in a horror flick.
This is just a temporary glitch…
In general, you do want the people in a community to have some skin in the game. If they own a piece of property they are naturally very concerned about their neighborhood, and will actively support, defend it and willingly contribute to measures that improve it.
If they don’t own, there’s no incentive and they can easily walk away from problems, because it aint their problem.. Ownership is what makes it your problem.
How about a quick link to the retarded quotes we’ve heard over the years from useless turds like Lereah, (fun)Yun, Seiders, etc. There’s a treasure trove of classic $hit out there.
Ben needs a permanent Wall of Shame to show these, as they grow each and every day in the MSM.
Come on Ben, put up a quote page so everyone can see how full of shit these MSM a-holes are realtwhores are.
Wall of Shame. Great idea. A nominating process would be in order.
RE: Come on Ben, put up a quote page so everyone can see how full of shit these MSM a-holes are realtwhores are.
The “All contained…” quip gets my vote for 1st place.
So far off the marker, ‘taint a bit funny.
Buffoons, all!
Me. I like “The United States vibrant housing market.” That gets my vote. It was in Time I think.
Roidy
What inning is it?
My vote is the third, assuming the game started in summer 2005 as the market peaked.
Maybe the question is; Is this going to go extra innings ??
How about the game being called because the only bat (US$) broke, and the other team dosn’t want to play anymore….
Do our relief pitchers (both short- and long-relief) have what it takes to get us out of this jam?
How should governments respond to the toxic combination of food and fuel inflation together with home price deflation?
Biblical Grand Jubilee. They could correlate it with the Mayan/Aztec end of the world in 2012.
Serously, all i can think of is some sort of unprecedented USA debt default followed by a wave of protectionsm/New Deal/relocalization to shore up infrastructure and agriculture. Might actually work, except that it’s too radical on the liberal side, and our entire food growth and distribution infrustructure has been exported. And we no longer drill our oil in Texas.
If Argentina didn’t default, and didn’t follow this administrations faulty advice, then at some point, shouldn’t the US follow its own advice? Just wondering.
Dancing With The Stars
Argentina & America doing the default Tango
By cutting interest rates and rewarding overpaid bankers, of course!
Oh - sorry… I thought you asked what they ARE going to do, not what they SHOULD do. My mistake!
Who were the winners in this….we keep hearing of all the losses but not the winners. Were there any winners?
All these Billion dollars in losses, someone pocketed that right? Were not just talking paper losses are we?
Take a look at recent years’ earnings of top managers in REIC firms (mortgage lending, home building, investment banking, etc) for your answer.
Heard 2nd hand of a mortgage broker around here with a 5 year old company that sold out to a NY fund and walked with 100 mil….
“Who were the winners in this …?”
The winners are the bystanders, the ones who watched but did not participate.
The winners have little debt and lots of cash. They will buy cheaply from those with lots of debt and little cash.
What about all the Corporations that gained sales during the housing boom with the funny money from housing equity like the car companies ,the furniture stores ,the home improvement stores ,the restaurant and travel business, big screen TV’s and every single thing that people wanted that they wouldn’t save for .
During the boom the prices were really high on all this junk ,but people didn’t care because it was funny money from equity loans . Instead of putting a down payment on a house ,people in droves went on low/no down toxic loans and bought a room full of new furniture instead and a brand new car .
Look at all the jobs that were created by the housing boom .The people that cash out their equity at the peak and pocketed the tax-free money were big winners . The loan agents and real estate agents ,and the Wall Street investment agents that pocketed all the big commissions during the boom would have a lot of money in the bank if they didn’t spend it like a drunk sailor .Any people who made big money during the boom and saved it instead of buying junk or more houses are winners ,in spite of the fact that they might be out of a job now . Realtors are making money off selling these foreclosures ,so some Realtors are making money on the foreclosures now.
Hyperinflation will have its way of dealing with all of us “winners.” Too many people in too much debt - Weimar Republic solution may be on the way…
Hyperinflation? but I can now afford a cheap condo after the crash and of course my wages haven’t gone up in ten years.
nobody pocketed it.. the money was created when the debt was created and it evaporated when the debt defaulted..
What of the D-rat mortgage rescue grand Kabuki dance?
1) Is it a bailout or something else?
2) Can they really provide $300 bn worth of ‘insurance’ for losses which have already occurred at a price tag of $3 bn? (Sounds like the financial equivalent of turning water into gold!)
3) Who are the real beneficiaries — homeowners facing foreclosure, or Wall Street gamblers who have gambling losses they would like to pass on to taxpayers. (Sounds to me like a scam: Claim to be helping homeowners facing foreclosure when the real purpose is to pay back your biggest campaign contributors on Wall Street and in Greenwich.)
4) If you really wanted to know what the rescue plan will cost taxpayers, wouldn’t it make sense to pay private insurers for the cost of the guarantees? If the price tag is only $3 bn, why not outsource it to the private sector? Perhaps Buffett could line up some kind of mortgage bailout insurance deal for Uncle Sam which would include a realistic estimate of the cost to taxpayers?
5) What do the polls say is the voter approval for this scheme? (I am guessing south of 25 pct voter approval…)
6) Can you picture Barney Frank in ceremonial Kabuki dance attire? (Kahuna Bear???)
Democrats unveil housing rescue plan
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 16 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Homeowners buckling under their mortgage payments would be allowed to refinance into more affordable government-backed loans under a proposal introduced by a House committee chairman Thursday.
The measure by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., calls for the Federal Housing Administration to insure some $300 billion in new mortgages for distressed borrowers, even if they are badly behind on their payments and have poor credit — including those who owe more than their homes are worth.
The bill would substantially relax the standards of the Depression-era FHA in an effort to reach the hardest-hit homeowners, leaving the government responsible for paying off their loans if they cannot. Lenders first would have to agree to wipe out a portion of the outstanding debt, and borrowers would have to show they could afford to make payments on the new mortgage.
Frank has described the plan — regarded by some Republicans as a bailout for reckless borrowers — as a measured response to the housing crisis that is necessary to head off further economic problems.
“”Lenders first would have to agree to wipe out a portion of the outstanding debt, and borrowers would have to show they could afford to make payments on the new mortgage.”"
And there ya have it folks.
House proposes, Senate proposes, but Bush (IIRC) threatened a veto of the Senate version.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/washington/08cnd-housing.html?hp
Here’s a weekend topic - what are the chances of a housing (rescue plan) bill reaching the President’s desk before our esteemed leaders leave Washington for a summer break?
Leigh;)
I have been saying all along that the power wanted to pass the junk loan risk and costs on to the taxpayers .
What portion of the outstanding debt are the lenders going to wipe out …10% ..5% ….the going market price for the property ?
What price is the government going to pay for the foreclosures ,the price of the mortgages on it ,or the market price of the trashed foreclosure ?
Since a credit crunch is the big problem ,than the governments only roll should be providing new loan funds for qualified borrowers with a down payment to take houses off the hands of people who couldn’t afford them anyway or they will walk because of no equity . What is this BS of trying to spend funds on making bad loans good and bail out the mortgage holders .
It was a investment mania and the gamblers lost and liar loan borrowers lost ,and they didn’t have much invested anyway ,so let them go back to renting .The only way to create a stable market is to let the prices fall and get good qualified buyers who really want to live in a home for the right reasons .
If a lender wants to keep a borrower in a property ,than let the darn lender, who was the party to the contract ,try to save their borrower . All the borrowers are claiming they are a victims in spite of the absurd amounts of debt they took on .
I just resent any funds going to bail out a housing mania whereby people were betting on real estate going up and were willing to go on toxic loans and submit liar loan and buy high price houses they couldn’t afford .
If the government starts bailing out people who took out equity to buy junk ,I’m just going to say that people in government need to be impeached at that point.
Testify, Wizard!!!
Amen Wiz.
H’Wiz,
Rant on.
I repeat myself. (Blush).
Words are cheap - They (Congress, Senate), pay lip - it’s too big!!
Best,
Leigh
HI Wiz,
I respect you.
”’I just resent any funds going to bail out a housing mania whereby people were betting on real estate going up and were willing to go on toxic loans and submit liar loan and buy high price houses they couldn’t afford .”’
I honestly believe the *CON*gress and *SIN*us are pulling our toes, as they will NOT pass a housing bill.
IMO, it’ too beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeg!
I’ve been wrong many times, but I’m betting the house on this one HW.
Pray I’m right on this one - politic’s pandering to the commons.
Best,
Leigh
If you really think about this proposal, it would not do as it is intended, which is to temporarily prop up falling home prices by stopping foreclosures. Everyone who has a mortgage would claim to be in a terminal “Help me, my loan is upside down” situation. I believe this would actually incentivise and accelerate the decline in housing prices. Followed to its logical conclusion, bailing out underwater homeowners in this manner could increase the downward spiral in prices to the point where houses would only sell for a cash value price.
Since it is such a stupid and costly idea, it will probably get passed.
‘Everyone who has a mortgage would claim to be in a terminal “Help me, my loan is upside down” situation. I believe this would actually incentivise and accelerate the decline in housing prices.’
So what you are basically saying is that the $3 bn estimated cost of the taxpayer-funded mortgage guarantees is right on the money?
P’Bear,
It’s to beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeg!
Not that they (Sinate and Conus) won’t attempt to make it worse.
Think election year.
Best,
Leigh
I was speaking with one of my engineers yesterday. We are both in agreement that many parts of the U.S. are sliding steadily toward third world status.
He is from the Phillipines originally and I did my Mormon mission in Mexico so we both know what it looks like.
What is the time frame going forward where we will genuinely see third world conditions prevail in the U. S. of A.? I’m not talking Watts or East L.A. Those are palacial compared to Manila or Tijuana.
My guestimate, thirty years and the forty year old bald guy with beer belly (my friends uncle) will be able to pick up college co-eds by offering them a ride in his ‘00 ford fiesta. (he has a ‘77 pinto)
Shantytowns will be the norm, not the peculiar. Mothers will line up for the days run of subsidized tortillas. Houses of the great bubble will have 2 or 3 families in them and only the wealthiest 10% will have a life style in any way similar to what we enjoy today.
Am I wrong?
yes
So the rest of the world will magically come up to meet our standard of living despite population growth in a climate of diminishing resources?
Hopefully Not!
But I think parts of LA, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, SF-Bay Area are heading their fast! Not sure about other parts of the US.
There are parts of Tokyo that already look like a third world dump. I’ve been to Vietnam and Cambodia so I’ve seen it for myself and know what it looks like!
I think that’s grossly pessimistic.
The Third World is as much a mindset as an economic condition, and I think we’re a long ways from that. I do see a rude awakening from the ‘consumption culture’, however.
My second question was rhetorical. The real question in my mind is, how long?
As an economic condition, we are already third world. We import more finished goods than we export and export more raw materials than we import.
My point exactly. That will most certainly weigh on standard of living across the board going forward.
I don’t care if it starts to look like a ghetto in Bhopal, tain’t no way some 40yo fat, bald guy is scoring with college co-eds while driving a ford anything. No gal is going to be touching his unit unless there is a $1,000 bill tied to it and even then it’d only be a fleeting touch. IMO.
LOL
I’m just relating the actual case in Manila. A guy with a Pinto and three squares a day is a king to those gals.
Hey, I spent many a night quaffing beers at the Firehouse on Mabini (sp?) street in Manila, I knew what you meant. I was just having some fun with your comment!
If it’s Third World, wouldn’t purchasing sex be relatively cheap?
I think the overall status of a nation, over the long term, is set by ability to access resources / population growth rate.
All U.S. growth rate is from immigration. Long before we become 3rd world, the natives will rise up against the illegals that are driving population growth.
We still have MASSIVE amounts of resources that can be tapped if/when needed.
If there is another great depression, and all the fake debt based wealth goes away, we will still have massive agriculture, massive minable resources, massive coal deposits, forrests, ranch land….
Not to mention, we still have the military to go and take whatever we need if times get too bad. We took a knife into a gun fight in Iraq and that is why we lose. If we really got serious about taking the oil, we could very easily just de-populate the middle east.
Much of the 3rd world lacks access to energy. Much of the 3rd world still has problems with unsustainable population growth.
I think it will be a VERY long time before we are 3rd world.
The USA is clearly on a path to 3rd World status, but you could make a strong argument we are already there. Think about it. This country has some massively wealthy people and shitloads of very poor people. Just about any major city is unsafe. Basic health care is unavailable to millions. Our education system is in shambles. Crime is out of control. The government is in power effectively after a coup in 2000.
What more do you need to obtain 3rd World Country status?
Our middle class is stil far too large. The middle class in the third world is in the top 10% of income but not the top 1%. The other 90% eat dirt.
dude, dont be un-dude.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm,
In MY limited knowledge, Third world status equates to ignorance and blind allegiance.
Some may feel the United States is on this course, I disagree.
Leave it to Beaver!
Leigh
Well, I still like owning. I never owned until I was 40 and had traveled all over and really wanted to settle down. It felt great, and finally there wasn’t this parental type Person in my life, the landlord, that I felt I always had to answer to. I was a good tenant and always paid up, but could never interest myself in their yards or anything. It was strictly an interior life.
I bought two houses and never benefited from the mortgage interest deduction because the first house cost so little, and the second was paid off in a few months. I like my current place but loved the first because it was small and cute, like an apartment with a fenced yard and garage. Too small for a couple though. Neither house was in a subdivision with an HOA, thankfully.
I do a lot of door to door stuff, and you can really tell the rentals. No landscaping usually, dried up lawns, no flowers planted, smudges on doors and walls, easy to scrub off but who cares, right? The worst neighborhoods were the ones with the most rentals. It was axiomatic.
Present company excepted of course.
There’s nothing wrong with owning if you bought in an economically sane manner and for the right reasons; extra kudos if your house is paid off, as yours is. Owning is a problem if you’re living beyond your means, you bid the prices up exponentially on everyone else, you have no skin in the game, you didn’t understand your mortgage documents, you’re HELOCed to the gills, and your job and marriage are not secure.
I talked to a used-house salesman today about a property selling pretty cheap. He says it’s hard to get in to show it, as the renter won’t answer phone calls and answers the door with a shotgun. It’s a pigpen. The couple who own it are divorcing and both moved to California. The renter quit paying rent 5 months ago. The county laws are such that they’re having to hire an attorney to get the guy out. The real estate guy says he knows of another place where the renters have quit paying rent and won’t move out.
“the renter won’t answer phone calls and answers the door with a shotgun.”
I rent an apt. in NY, and when I read that I just started cracking up.
I don’t know why people say New Yorkers are a tough crowd…it’s you country folk who are serious hard azzes. Would love to introduce my landlord to this tenant.
OK. They really should have moved to AZ. They can rent: grow or sell drugs, and the landlord is culpable. Up to losing their house.
At least it was that way.
How about which political party contributed what? I am of the opinion they are both equally to blame for this mess. One could find enough to point at both. I have become a little jaded now and think all politicos are basically serve serving AHoles and the real interest of the people be darned. If Hillary and Barack (and Bush) want to ‘help poor homeowners’, let them first pledge 100% of their personal fortunes. Then will discuss my tax dollars (and from the other prudent). They of course won’t be willing. So neither am I willing.
Did anyone ever hear what happened to those plans for ‘retirement barges’ that would float a bunch of retirees up and down the Mississippi River with no fixed address? That’s probably my favorite bubble story of all. It can’t have gone through.
Sounds like a parody from The Onion, almost.
Wow.
Ahhh, raw materials supply chain management to the soylent green processing plant. For that guy wondering about supply chain mgmt as a career in bits I think, here’s an opportunity.
Ben, I’d like to see a topic on how this housing mess plays out. Predictions. Also discussions on the many bailouts. LOL
That was a cheap shot. Sorry.
What mess are you talking about? The housing bust is over, and the endless boom is back. Don’t waste your time poking fun at the gloomsters here — go out this second and buy some homebuilder stocks (or better yet, buy Google stock).
If anyone wants to know an insiders view of the homebuilder business I haven’t seen anything better than floridabuilder’s blog over at Motley Fool. Take the time to go back and read it from the beginning and you’ll certainly be wiser.
http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewBlog.aspx?t=01000603789045326844
Is kicking the kneecap or shins a viable campaign strategy? How about a blow to the groin area? (Probably would not work on a female candidate, but I can understand how a confused female might hope it would work on a male candidate…)
Op-Ed Columnist
Hillary or Nobody?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 26, 2008
WASHINGTON
HC = the Tonya Harding of politics, except not as attractive looking…
Attractive looking? Given a choice between those two based on attractiveness alone, I’d go the lifelong bachelor route.
Maureen Dowd is a right wing tool. She is paid well to lie to the sheeple.
“Maureen Dowd is a right wing tool. She is paid well to lie to the sheeple.”
I don’t care what she thinks, I just dig red heads.
I’d like to see something on the places where housing prices are still going up and an explanation as to why. A 12-house new development in my neck of the woods (3500sf - 4400 sf homes on 0.5ac lots now starting at $720K - $815K) just reached the 50% sold mark (or so) and upped prices 3%. Not a lot of new construction around here; maybe that’s the answer.
Did April Fool’s Day come seventeen days late on Wall Street this year?
Countdown to the close:19min18sec
April 18, 2008 3:37 P.M.ET
BULLETIN
Flood of weekly gains on tap
Street roars ahead as investors applaud results from Google and better-than-expected Citigroup news, along with Caterpillar, Honeywell reports.
The bond market does not buy the bullphoria.
Got a Dow Theory buy signal, cowboy. Deal with it.
So Fla report: Bank of America is suggesting new home buyers not spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs. But they’d love to give you a mortgage!
Countrywide is offering 100% financing on their REOs.
1 - Historical boom / busts, housing or other financial speculation and how they played out. (Or narrow down to 80s crash and Resolution Trust stuff…)
2 - Scandal stuff - French “rogue trader” etc