Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Housing Boom Redux  (Read 646 times)

Offline BlueBee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
  • Gender: Male
Housing Boom Redux
« on: July 17, 2012, 06:52:15 PM »
So I read this article on CNBC suggesting that the housing market may be the best in 5 years?  What do y’all think?

The article goes on to suggest that as the supply of foreclosed homes goes down due to the $25 billion dollar robo-signing settlement, prices go up and housing recovers.  Seems logical.  A healthy housing industry generates a lot of jobs since that is about the only industry the CEOs can’t outsource to China.  Does a new housing boom lead us out of recession? 

So what would have happened if the trillion we gave the banks instead went to adjust (or loan) the underwater mortgages in the first place?   


Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16136
  • Gender: Female
Re: Housing Boom Redux
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2012, 07:30:27 PM »
So what would have happened if the trillion we gave the banks instead went to adjust (or loan) the underwater mortgages in the first place? 

a lot of money did go to those people.  most of them failed again.  because we did so much mortgage mitigation, the recovery will take years longer than if we'd just let those homes be foreclosed on and then started immediately clearing the inventory.  another looming problem is that construction is up.  builders are finding that many people would rather buy new.  while in the short term, this creates jobs, in the long term it hurts the housing market because older homes do not clear....and the longer they sit empty, the less likely they will be to clear.  not to mention the harm to the existing neighborhood.

most of the people losing homes are losing them because they either got into homes they couldn't afford, or took equity out of homes that did not hold value.  the first was caused by the government.  the second caused by stupidity.  neither reason ought to be supported by the tax payer.

how would you suggest that the tax payer be paid back if those losing homes were given money?  would they pay it back with interest as the banks did?  probably not, or they would have paid the mortgage in the first place. why should the banks, forced by the government to loan to unqualified people, be out the money if they are not paid back?

you seem perfectly happy to give money to unions and deadbeat home owners, yet you get twisted about loaning money to a business that pays it back.  while i am not in favor of the government doing any of the above, your position is curious....   
One could not learn history from architecture any more than one could learn it from books. Statues, inscriptions, memorial stones, the names of streets ? anything that might throw light upon the past had been systematically altered. (1.8.85)

George Orwell  "1984"