• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow

Dirty Harry said:
The FED was pumping billions into the financial sector while lowering interest rates during and after the recession of '01.. There was plenty of money to meet the increased demand. However if the demand for new homes had remained constant the bubble would not have happened. The pushing for everyone to own their home, ready or not, stimulated demand to almost double that of before '01. That demand created the boom, the bubble and it's eventual collapse. Fannie, Freddie, bundled mortgages and derivitives would have never made the news without the bubble and it'a collapse.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry but your understanding of this situation bothers me. it's so full of half truths and twisted logics that there's no way of fixing it in this post. nothing you said was completely wrong, but your description and conclusions show a real lack of understanding. but hey, let's give it a try.

curious: what billions did the fed pump into the system during and after the recession of '01. if you're talking about expanding amount of money in the system, they've been doing that through credit since the '70's when we left the gold standard, check shadowstats.com for an explanation of that.

you seem puzzled on the idea of demand. the government has been administering policies with the goal of expanded home ownership since it created fannie mae in 1938. pretty consistently since then the federal government has been coercing the majority of the population to go into debt and invest in a single market, real estate. the majority of this nation's wealth and leverage is all in a single market, and it's been expanding long before bush, clinton, carter, greenspan, bernanke. but all these men failed to see where it was leading.

this of course was all put into overdrive when glass-steagall was repealed, further bank deregulation allowed the bundling, fraud the fraud power created mythical amounts of wealth that is still floating around the system today. we've only seen a small amount of this unwound. we still have easy money and the gse's. fraud is as rampant as ever. but the investing public now realizes it's a bad time to be caught owning these mbs's without a seat when the music stops. so guess who owns it all now... all of us, at the gse's, at the fed, in the pension funds.

this **** is fractal and you're looking really close up, stand back and look at the larger picture and looking at the tiny amount a single piece of this inflated a bit of the bubble is ridiculous. that bubble's been inflating since 1913, and to keep it going your dollar has lost 99% of its value in that time. remember, systems like this work until they don't, and when they don't you realize that the 100 years of supposed prosperity wasn't worth the final cost.
 
Zyroh said:
i'm sorry but your understanding of this situation bothers me. it's so full of half truths and twisted logics that there's no way of fixing it in this post. nothing you said was completely wrong, but your description and conclusions show a real lack of understanding. but hey, let's give it a try.

curious: what billions did the fed pump into the system during and after the recession of '01. if you're talking about expanding amount of money in the system, they've been doing that through credit since the '70's when we left the gold standard, check shadowstats.com for an explanation of that.

you seem puzzled on the idea of demand. the government has been administering policies with the goal of expanded home ownership since it created fannie mae in 1938. pretty consistently since then the federal government has been coercing the majority of the population to go into debt and invest in a single market, real estate. the majority of this nation's wealth and leverage is all in a single market, and it's been expanding long before bush, clinton, carter, greenspan, bernanke. but all these men failed to see where it was leading.

this of course was all put into overdrive when glass-steagall was repealed, further bank deregulation allowed the bundling, fraud the fraud power created mythical amounts of wealth that is still floating around the system today. we've only seen a small amount of this unwound. we still have easy money and the gse's. fraud is as rampant as ever. but the investing public now realizes it's a bad time to be caught owning these mbs's without a seat when the music stops. so guess who owns it all now... all of us, at the gse's, at the fed, in the pension funds.

this **** is fractal and you're looking really close up, stand back and look at the larger picture and looking at the tiny amount a single piece of this inflated a bit of the bubble is ridiculous. that bubble's been inflating since 1913, and to keep it going your dollar has lost 99% of its value in that time. remember, systems like this work until they don't, and when they don't you realize that the 100 years of supposed prosperity wasn't worth the final cost.
Click to expand...

In '01 The country was in a recession. New home contruction was falling. To pull us out of recession Greenspan pumped billions into the financial sector and lowered interest rates to levels never seen before. Bush started a homeowner initiative that reduced borrower requirements, red tape and even down payments. He toured the country spreading his plan to make this an ownership society and how everyone should own their own home. New home construction doubled due to the newly created demand. Home values started to skyrocket and more and more people were afraid they would be priced out of the market so they bought homes even when they weren't ready. They sold ten years worth of homes in 5 years. They created a bubble and eventually it all came crashing down.
This was not normal home value increases from inflation. This was a bubble. Do you know the difference?

Half truths? Everything I have said is fact.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
In '01 The country was in a recession. New home contruction was falling. To pull us out of recession Greenspan pumped billions into the financial sector and lowered interest rates to levels never seen before. Bush started a homeowner initiative that reduced borrower requirements, red tape and even down payments. He toured the country spreading his plan to make this an ownership society and how everyone should own their own home. New home construction doubled due to the newly created demand. Home values started to skyrocket and more and more people were afraid they would be priced out of the market so they bought homes even when they weren't ready. They sold ten years worth of homes in 5 years. They created a bubble and eventually it all came crashing down.
This was not normal home value increases from inflation. This was a bubble. Do you know the difference?

Half truths? Everything I have said is fact.
Click to expand...

the half part is where you think it suddenly started in '01. or maybe it's just willful ignorance. if you apply a bit of logic i'm sure you'll come around.
 
The Prof said:
even tho houses are almost worthless, they're not moving at all

today: New-home sales in 2010 fall to lowest in 47 years - Yahoo! Finance

what happened to hamp, mr president?

feb, 2009: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51G5X7200902180
Click to expand...

When my parents bought their house their main support for doing so was "it's easy to get out of the mortgage if things start to fall apart" - or "and it'll be worth something in the future when we sell it, absolutely" - as well as "house-values NEVER drop"

Well - it's not, it wasn't, and they do.

Homes were SEEN as being solid - steadily increasing - always present - an actual dependable investment with a guaranteed return. Now people see them as a chance - a HUGE chance - and one that many aren't wanting to take. I most certain have no interest in furthering the hole I'm already in.
 
Zyroh said:
the half part is where you think it suddenly started in '01. or maybe it's just willful ignorance. if you apply a bit of logic i'm sure you'll come around.
Click to expand...

It did start after the '01 recession. New home sales were dropping and prices were flat during the recession. New home sales doubled after that and prices skyrocketed. That was the bubble. No time in history were more homes built than after the '01 recession. You should look at the data instead of relying on your partisan ignorance. The problem is, partisans like you believe what they want you to believe instead of looking at the facts.
The housing sector was used to pull us out of the '01 recession with disasterous results.
I work in the housing sector. I lived this.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
When my parents bought their house their main support for doing so was "it's easy to get out of the mortgage if things start to fall apart" - or "and it'll be worth something in the future when we sell it, absolutely" - as well as "house-values NEVER drop"

Well - it's not, it wasn't, and they do.

Homes were SEEN as being solid - steadily increasing - always present - an actual dependable investment with a guaranteed return. Now people see them as a chance - a HUGE chance - and one that many aren't wanting to take. I most certain have no interest in furthering the hole I'm already in.
Click to expand...

The bubble ruined it forever. Americans got screwed but the banks are still making their money.
 
Last edited:
Dirty Harry said:
Clinton left Bush a recession. Remember? There was no Housing boom then. The Bubble occurred when interest rates were cut and Bush pushed for everyone to own their home. New home construction almost doubled after '02. The bubble occurred from '02 to '06.

Clinton had nothing to do with creating the housing bubble.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the "Bush pushed for everyone to own their own home" thing. As far as I can recall...owning your own home has long been considered 'the American Dream.' The reason why so many people got into the housing market is because the economy was booming, people were doing well and that old house wasnt good enough...they wanted to move on up. They moved up into new and nicer digs, then people came along behind them, but up the old homestead and fixed it up a little and the prices on starter homes and older homes climbed right on up. We SAW the bubble coming. We didnt slow down. We didnt stop. We didnt do a sanity check. We...all of us including private citizens, banks, and the government just kept on pushing.
 
Dirty Harry said:
The bubble ruined it forever.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

The entire 'having a home' as part of the American Dream resulted in generations of people realizing that dream through various means - and then that dream turning to a nightmare.

I think the core of the dream dying is that people became to simply expect it - as if owning a home was a simple run of the mill toss away "thing" to do for a while.
 
Dirty Harry said:
The bubble ruined it forever. Americans got screwed but the banks are still making their money.
Click to expand...

Not 'the banks'...just the ones big enough to sustain the losses and then carry on. Some didnt get touched at all because they never got into the bad loan business in the first place.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Pretty much.

The entire 'having a home' as part of the American Dream resulted in generations of people realizing that dream through various means - and then that dream turning to a nightmare.

I think the core of the dream dying is that people became to simply expect it - as if owning a home was a simple run of the mill toss away "thing" to do for a while.
Click to expand...

I dont think its dead...and in fact its still very reachable. We just arent used to doing it the way we had to back in the 70's and 80's.
 
VanceMack said:
I must have missed the "Bush pushed for everyone to own their own home" thing. As far as I can recall...owning your own home has long been considered 'the American Dream.' The reason why so many people got into the housing market is because the economy was booming, people were doing well and that old house wasnt good enough...they wanted to move on up. They moved up into new and nicer digs, then people came along behind them, but up the old homestead and fixed it up a little and the prices on starter homes and older homes climbed right on up. We SAW the bubble coming. We didnt slow down. We didnt stop. We didnt do a sanity check. We...all of us including private citizens, banks, and the government just kept on pushing.
Click to expand...

You must have been taking a nap for those six years. The economy was doing well because they were building all those new homes. Bush even came to my hometown and repeated this speech.

 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Not 'the banks'...just the ones big enough to sustain the losses and then carry on. Some didnt get touched at all because they never got into the bad loan business in the first place.
Click to expand...

And the banks that got bailed out? Remember the day capitalism died and the government saved the day?
The government will always make sure the rich stay rich.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Not 'the banks'...just the ones big enough to sustain the losses and then carry on. Some didnt get touched at all because they never got into the bad loan business in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's right... the local banks and credit unions have too much to lose to take the kinds of gambles these 'too big to fails' (which is just another way of saying everyone else is 'too small to save') have taken.

There's a reason why the founding fathers considered the types of crimes these banks are committing as crimes in the same realm as treason, because the end result is that the countries wealth is stolen, and so the people engaging in these activities would be considered as 'domestic enemies'... but in today's society that type of theft earns them the promise of trillions in taxpayer dollars to cover any losses, meanwhile any gains are kept mostly in the hands of the CEO's and other executives.
 
Dirty Harry said:
You must have been taking a nap for those six years. The economy was doing well because they were building all those new homes. Bush even came to my hometown and repeated this speech.

Click to expand...


Gooooood lawd. You dont think EVERY American president that has ever been elected hasnt highlighted the American dream or given a similar speech? Or for that matter every congressman...or Governor?

OWNING the homes...BUYING homes has never been the problem. The problem is and has been the inflated prices of said homes. That didnt come about because a president said gosh it would be great if everyone could own a home.
 
Dirty Harry said:
And the banks that got bailed out? Remember the day capitalism died and the government saved the day?
The government will always make sure the rich stay rich.
Click to expand...

While I disagree with the banking bailouts (should be obvious since I have stated numerous times the government should have let the market collapse in 2006) their intent was not to 'make the rich richer, their intent was a misguided notion that buoying up the banks would allow them to continue to loan people money so that they can start businesses and make purchases. It was a BAD idea...as bad as the notion that the way to get our economy running again is to have the fed spend us deeper and deeper into debt.
 
BmanMcfly said:
That's right... the local banks and credit unions have too much to lose to take the kinds of gambles these 'too big to fails' (which is just another way of saying everyone else is 'too small to save') have taken.

There's a reason why the founding fathers considered the types of crimes these banks are committing as crimes in the same realm as treason, because the end result is that the countries wealth is stolen, and so the people engaging in these activities would be considered as 'domestic enemies'... but in today's society that type of theft earns them the promise of trillions in taxpayer dollars to cover any losses, meanwhile any gains are kept mostly in the hands of the CEO's and other executives.
Click to expand...

Yes...I know. Those evil bankers went out and dragged people by the collar into their banks and MADE them fill out those loan applications.
 
VanceMack said:
Gooooood lawd. You dont think EVERY American president that has ever been elected hasnt highlighted the American dream or given a similar speech? Or for that matter every congressman...or Governor?

OWNING the homes...BUYING homes has never been the problem. The problem is and has been the inflated prices of said homes. That didnt come about because a president said gosh it would be great if everyone could own a home.
Click to expand...

No, but after that speech, he pushed banks into accepting loans that they otherwise wouldn't take on because of the level of risk on their parts.... that coupled with what the bigger banks DID with those mortgages afterward IS WHAT CAUSED the bubble, and well, bubbles will end up popping.

VanceMack said:
Yes...I know. Those evil bankers went out and dragged people by the collar into their banks and MADE them fill out those loan applications.
Click to expand...

No, you're right... but the consumer was only one fraction of this total bubble. Some banks were even encouraging people to exagerate on the loan documents because then they could make a bigger loan and personally get a bigger commission.

Flipping homes was the 'cool thing to do'... the less work you could get away with doing the better...

BUT, in terms of economic damage, what happens AFTER the consumer gets the loan and starts living in the home... THAT was infinitely more detrimental. Almost like comparing a mild headache to full blown brain cancer.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont think its dead...and in fact its still very reachable. We just arent used to doing it the way we had to back in the 70's and 80's.
Click to expand...

No, it's no longer a key component to "the American Dream" - it has been set, now, as it should always have been: just something that some people obtain in life.

Labeling it into a "Dream" is where we went wrong with the idea to begin with.
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, but after that speech, he pushed banks into accepting loans that they otherwise wouldn't take on because of the level of risk on their parts.... that coupled with what the bigger banks DID with those mortgages afterward IS WHAT CAUSED the bubble, and well, bubbles will end up popping.



No, you're right... but the consumer was only one fraction of this total bubble. Some banks were even encouraging people to exagerate on the loan documents because then they could make a bigger loan and personally get a bigger commission.

Flipping homes was the 'cool thing to do'... the less work you could get away with doing the better...

BUT, in terms of economic damage, what happens AFTER the consumer gets the loan and starts living in the home... THAT was infinitely more detrimental. Almost like comparing a mild headache to full blown brain cancer.
Click to expand...

I have several properties. I also was nigh unto a signature away from buying a personal home that I could no way afford. I still remember it like it was yesterday...my wife and I sitting with the mortgage consultant and doing the math...if we refi property X...roll the truck and boat payment into the new home loan, take the ARM, we can buy the 1.2 mill house...we can swing the 4k a month payments til 3 years from now when the ARM kicks in...all we have to do is make sure that A, we refi the property when the property value goes up and B, ensure our monthly income continues to keep pace with the ARM. We cut out cable, cell phone...only eat out maybe once every three months, cancel Christmas...baby...I think we can swing it...

Then we both stopped and looked at each other and said the SAME thing...what are we DOING???

NO ONE offered us the loan up front. No one enticed us. We were doing VERY well and we just got caught up in the swell. It WAS a VERY nice house...I must say! I also can say that I still live in my primary residence...pay all of $600.00 a month and am very glad we didnt do that to ourselves. BTW...we also built a 4 unit condo on the tail end of the bubble that we have a hard time keeping rented for what we owe on it. Thank goodness the other properties are well above water.
 
VanceMack said:
Yes...I know. Those evil bankers went out and dragged people by the collar into their banks and MADE them fill out those loan applications.
Click to expand...

no, but they committed massive amounts of fraud. allstate did a survey of countrywide loans that were taken over by bank of america then sold off to investers, 9 out of 10 of the 'liar loans' (loans where you're not required to prove income) had misstated incomes. the ratings agencies, s&p and moodies principly, lied about the ratings on these things. goldman sachs and john paulson and their ilk misrepresented not only their positions on the cdo's they created, but also the makings of those cdo's. and none of these people are in jail. they may not have held a gun to anyone's head, but they sure had to do a lot of lying to make sure that they weren't caught with the losses and they weren't sent to jail.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
No, it's no longer a key component to "the American Dream" - it has been set, now, as it should always have been: just something that some people obtain in life.

Labeling it into a "Dream" is where we went wrong with the idea to begin with.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should call it "the American mid life goal." I know a lot of folks who are opting for inner city condos with no property to maintain, close enough to places that they can take the bus or metro, and small enough kids can visit for a day or two but not stay indefinitely.
 
Zyroh said:
no, but they committed massive amounts of fraud. allstate did a survey of countrywide loans that were taken over by bank of america then sold off to investers, 9 out of 10 of the 'liar loans' (loans where you're not required to prove income) had misstated incomes. the ratings agencies, s&p and moodies principly, lied about the ratings on these things. goldman sachs and john paulson and their ilk misrepresented not only their positions on the cdo's they created, but also the makings of those cdo's. and none of these people are in jail. they may not have held a gun to anyone's head, but they sure had to do a lot of lying to make sure that they weren't caught with the losses and they weren't sent to jail.
Click to expand...

And anyone that got into those loans knew precisely what they were doing.

Look...Im not saying the banks are without guilt (I HAVE stated that several times...right?). Im saying banks made stupid loans to stupid people that got into them. We all own our pice of the problem. Its not a Clinton thing, or a Bush thing or a Barney Frank thing or a...ok...you get the point...right?
 
Dirty Harry said:
The FED was pumping billions into the financial sector while lowering interest rates during and after the recession of '01.. There was plenty of money to meet the increased demand. However if the demand for new homes had remained constant the bubble would not have happened. The pushing for everyone to own their home, ready or not, stimulated demand to almost double that of before '01. That demand created the boom, the bubble and it's eventual collapse. Fannie, Freddie, bundled mortgages and derivitives would have never made the news without the bubble and it'a collapse.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can get that lots of chesp money on the market creatd the bubble but deny that Fannie and Freddie had anything to do with it. When banks need more money where do they get it? (ideally saving but that is anonther discussion ) From the feds and after that, Selling derivitives. Who was buying the derivitives? Lots of people were, including Fannie and Freddie. The more Fannie and Freddie bought (Prime, sub prime, alt-a or otherwise) the more money the banks have to fuel the bubble and Bush's quest for universal home ownership.

The reason you have been accused of half truths is because you have a fairly good grasp on part of the problem but completely deny other parts of it and where to lay blame.
 
VanceMack said:
I have several properties. I also was nigh unto a signature away from buying a personal home that I could no way afford. I still remember it like it was yesterday...my wife and I sitting with the mortgage consultant and doing the math...if we refi property X...roll the truck and boat payment into the new home loan, take the ARM, we can buy the 1.2 mill house...we can swing the 4k a month payments til 3 years from now when the ARM kicks in...all we have to do is make sure that A, we refi the property when the property value goes up and B, ensure our monthly income continues to keep pace with the ARM. We cut out cable, cell phone...only eat out maybe once every three months, cancel Christmas...baby...I think we can swing it...

Then we both stopped and looked at each other and said the SAME thing...what are we DOING???

NO ONE offered us the loan up front. No one enticed us. We were doing VERY well and we just got caught up in the swell. It WAS a VERY nice house...I must say! I also can say that I still live in my primary residence...pay all of $600.00 a month and am very glad we didnt do that to ourselves. BTW...we also built a 4 unit condo on the tail end of the bubble that we have a hard time keeping rented for what we owe on it. Thank goodness the other properties are well above water.
Click to expand...

At least you are doing relatively well...

That said, the enticement is that you see the house you can't afford, you walk through the house and you think 'this could be mine'... and that you have a lender that is willing to give you the loan knowing that you are just scraping by to afford it.

The enticement for the agent is the increased commissions, similarly for the banks, the lawyers, etc... but only the institutions get bailed out when the scheme falls apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom