US house prices in freefall -- redux

[DirtyMartini]

No one can own the land, the Earth belongs to us all.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


That's what the market does. That's what the market is doing now.

See title of thread.

When demand falls (2005-current) the value of those homes goes down, mortgages become more affordable -- more renters become buyers.

That's flat out wrong. There are more renters now than there were before the crisis.

I really don't think raising rent is a better solution than lowering house payments. Remember my point is that everyone who works should be able to buy a house, not that they should end up in a homeless shelter.

While it's true that eventually those renters will start buying houses again, when they do the house prices are just going to shoot up again, mostly because of speculation, and we will be faced with the same problem of people not being able to make their payments.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


All right, I'll bite. In fact, ignore all my other long-winded posts and answer this one, I think this is the meat of the discussion.

What regulation would you propose that would result in more low-priced homes on the market?

It's Patroklos who thinks the real problem is people buying homes that they can't afford. I don't actually think that's a cause for the crisis. But if I were to propose regulations it would be to create a cap on prices and create some subsidies. That would take care of land speculation as well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
No one can own the land, the Earth belongs to us all.

own = control

[Patroklos]

I don't actually think that's a cause for the crisis.

Kids solution to the forclosure cirses = force all current homeowners into forclosure

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's Patroklos who thinks the real problem is people buying homes that they can't afford. I don't actually think that's a cause for the crisis. But if I were to propose regulations it would be to create a cap on prices and create some subsidies. That would take care of land speculation as well.

That would take care of having any builders in the game as well.

Guess those houses will have to build themselves.

Or were you going to pass a bill that builders MUST build...even if they don't make any money?

Oh Cool! Then we could pass a bill that the people who worked for builders and the people that sold them material boith had to do it for less!!

Oh wait! Then we could pass abill that those people that worked for builders, who are now doing it for less, can't leave those jobs for higher paying ones.

Oops! We forgot about the bill that we need to pass to make the cost of living cheaper for these people so they can make it!


Oh hell...forget it! Let's just take all the rich peoples money and give it to the poor people! Then we can all afford McMansion!!


Yeah...all that is crap. Just like a plan to regulate housing costs is crap.





Kid...please learn something about how this industry works. Please?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO
That would take care of having any builders in the game as well.

Guess those houses will have to build themselves.

Hyperbole. With subsidies, and reduced risk, more houses would be built.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hyperbole. With subsidies, and reduced risk, more houses would be built.

So builders should build at a loss?

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The money has to come from somewhere.

Subsidies mean that taxes will go up, and that means the US will be worse off in the long run.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Kidicious




own = control

yeah...that was a joke. I was bored.

I'm trying very hard to understand the logic behind the rest of your posts, but I'm coming to the same conclusions that Plato did.

I guess the government could subsidize the building of tracts of (very) low cost housing and make such homes available to those below the poverty level. I'm no expert, but I believe a similar program has existed. The result was "housing projects". That certainly turned out well.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


yeah...that was a joke. I was bored.

I'm trying very hard to understand the logic behind the rest of your posts, but I'm coming to the same conclusions that Plato did.

I guess the government could subsidize the building of tracts of (very) low cost housing and make such homes available to those below the poverty level. I'm no expert, but I believe a similar program has existed. The result was "housing projects". That certainly turned out well.

Is that a joke? Are you actually against housing projects? Why?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Subsidies mean that taxes will go up, and that means the US will be worse off in the long run.

That depends on what you think are the goals of the nation. Some people really like things just as they are despite many people suffering because they can make a profit. For example, some people really don't care about the homeless as long as they can take this opportunity to get ahead by buying a house cheap.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Is that a joke? Are you actually against housing projects? Why?

that's a fair question. it's not so much a joke as a poorly informed statement. when I think "housing project", I think "crime-ridden sh*thole where no one in their right mind would want to live". I'm sure that's an incomplete and completely unfair statement.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini


that's a fair question. it's not so much a joke as a poorly informed statement. when I think "housing project", I think "crime-ridden sh*thole where no one in their right mind would want to live". I'm sure that's an incomplete and completely unfair statement.

Well, this would be nothing like housing projects. The most significant difference of course is that residence would be the owners of their dwellings.

I was just wondering if you were against housing subsidies for things like housing projects. Of course no one wants to live in them, but it's better than the alternative, or they wouldn't.

[Ben Kenobi]

That depends on what you think are the goals of the nation.

It seems pretty simple to me. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some people really like things just as they are despite many people suffering because they can make a profit.

Profit isn't evil. You are either taking home money because people like to buy the things you make, or you are extorting money from people since you are paid by the government.

I think it's much better to make money because people want to give it to you, rather then having to be taxed to pay it.

For example, some people really don't care about the homeless as long as they can take this opportunity to get ahead by buying a house cheap.

Your 'solution' is a chicken in every pot, and a house for every person.

I seem to remember that rhetoric from somewhere. I dunno, could it have been Hoover? I didn't know he was one of your mentors.

No one is entitled to a house.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It seems pretty simple to me. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's too simple. Choices have to be made. You can't just pretend like you aren't making choices.

Profit isn't evil.

Choosing profit over people needs is.

You are either taking home money because people like to buy the things you make, or you are extorting money from people since you are paid by the government.

That's got nothing to do with what is going on here. People are supporting a specific policy because they want to profit from it. It got nothing to do with honest work.

I think it's much better to make money because people want to give it to you, rather then having to be taxed to pay it.

That would be great if the free market worked like you are claiming that it does, but it doesn't. My proposal is in the best interest of society as a whole. The only ones who oppose it seek to profit from the alternative.

No one is entitled to a house.

They certainly are.