Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Housing Starts Rise 37% YoY Crushing Expectations

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    their are a couple of things that will turn the market around.

    1.) a shift from debt base purchasing of real estate to labor/cash based purchasing.
    2.) population growth rate increase, either immigration or higher rates of birth
    3.) land value appreciation IE, some heretofore undiscovered resource in the sand/rock/gravel/soil the house is built on.
    4.) real economic growth
    1) which would mean lower housing prices, unless richer people invest in real estate, or unless wages/earnings increase
    2) which would make unemployment worse
    3) that would be great, if people can afford to buy and use the resources
    4) no idea what that means, but seems like everybody wants to see it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    You need real economic growth , but then you need increases in Mnfg here in the US. Not seeing it .
    but reducing consumption and reducing population growth is possible.

  4. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    23,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    but reducing consumption and reducing population growth is possible.
    Those may actually have negative effects. Population coming into a work force with not enough jobs is not correctable in the near term. In the long term you would need the most tax payers/ earners possible to continue to prop up the unfunded social spending and debt being created. Cutting consumption means more recession.
    Last edited by oyarde; 01-27-2013 at 09:44 PM.

  5. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    23,527

    Default

    I see no way out that does not bring pain.

  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I see no way out that does not bring pain.
    agreed, the only questions are : who will/should suffer, and when.

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Those may ectually have negative effects. Population coming into a work force with not enough jobs is not correctable in the near term. In the long term you would need the most tax payers/ earners possible to continue to prop up the unfunded social spending and debt being created. Cutting consumption means more recession.
    Yes, and creating jobs to give to people just because there are not enough is not the answer. That would be classic bandaid solution. If reducing regulations frees up more opportunities, I'm all for it. I am not for artificially creating jobs just to restribute wealth because we're too classy to say we just want to give people money and there isn't any demand for labor or work.

    You wouldn't need to increase taxpayers and social program funding sources if you can reduce the programs and the dependants themselves.
    Last edited by Tpoints; 01-27-2013 at 09:31 PM.

  8. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    23,527

    Default

    All very good points, I think we kind of see where we are.

  9. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Land of Indians
    Posts
    23,527

    Default

    If you trashed regulation , the economy could heal itself , but that will not happen until the power structure ( govt ) fails .

  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    If you trashed regulation , the economy could heal itself , but that will not happen until the power structure ( govt ) fails .
    you and I may agree on what that means, but we also know who will suffer and who would rather die than to see that happen.

  11. #70
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,230
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    1) which would mean lower housing prices, unless richer people invest in real estate, or unless wages/earnings increase
    2) which would make unemployment worse
    3) that would be great, if people can afford to buy and use the resources
    4) no idea what that means, but seems like everybody wants to see it.
    #2, not necessarily, as you can see, life go on when less than 50% of the population actually works. Employment isn't really bad cause people are out of work. Employment is bad because compensation is made with fiat. (IMO). The currency is designed to enrich the people who touch it first, meaning the wholesalers. More people in the real economy increases demand creating opportunity for entrepreneurship and small business growth in LOCAL economies. again IMO.

    #4, you probably saw this already but Irwin Schiff (yes Peter Schiff's dad for those who haven't seen it.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg

    really i think all 4 of those go together to create a solid FOUNDATION from which to build a housing market.

  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    #2, not necessarily, as you can see, life go on when less than 50% of the population actually works. Employment isn't really bad cause people are out of work. Employment is bad because compensation is made with fiat. (IMO). The currency is designed to enrich the people who touch it first, meaning the wholesalers. More people in the real economy increases demand creating opportunity for entrepreneurship and small business growth in LOCAL economies. again IMO.

    #4, you probably saw this already but Irwin Schiff (yes Peter Schiff's dad for those who haven't seen it.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg


    really i think all 4 of those go together to create a solid FOUNDATION from which to build a housing market.

    What I meant was, more people will almost always means less employment, especially when you're already in a high unemployment situation. Granted, unemployment is hard to measure, and luckily, somebody gave me a good definition this week, which is "only people looking for work", this weeds out people who are unemployed or retired by choice.

    I don't doubt life goes on, just tell that to my unemployed neighbors. And I definitely am not the kind of person who will say unemployment is bad per se (see above). But I find it interesting people always deny it as fast as they can, meaning they most likely accepted the premise that unemployment is poverty.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •