By Al Yoon
NEW YORK | Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:40am EST
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Home prices fell for the 53rd consecutive month in November, taking the decline past that of the Great Depression for the first time in the prolonged housing slump, according to Zillow.
Home prices have fallen 26 percent since their peak in 2006, exceeding the 25.9 percent drop registered in the five years between 1928 and 1933, the housing data company said in a report on Monday. Prices fell 0.8 percent over the month.
Home price drops exceed Great Depression: Zillow | Reuters
Oh wait a second, I thought the recession was over in 2009...
CBC News - Money - Recession declared officially over
Yet home prices have fallen for 53 consecutive months... that's more then 4 years of straight decline.
So, how long before these prices bottom out and start to stabilize again?? How much more is your mortgage then the value of your house?? How low will the bottom be??
How long before people stop trusting the experts that keep saying 'don't worry, the worst is over'???
What's been the solution? THey are on 'QE2', and there are already rumors of a QE3... which is essentially printing money to cover the day to day expenses. That's about as effective as maxing out both your credit cards, so you get a third card so you can balance the debt with a higher limit... and then having rumors circulating of your plans to get a fourth credit card in the near future.... except worse because it's going out as 'taxpayer covered'...
Does this concern anyone else as it does me?
I'm going to be trying to sell a house soon. Not looking forward to it at all.
Until Obama starts to show same basic understanding of the facts about what is needed the economy will continue to suck.
So far nothing he or any of his disciples have come up with has really worked and until he learns that his amateurs need to be replaced by people with some real business management talent and experience a mind set that contributes so much to the problem with despair will continue.
Until people feel better about the direction we are going in economically they are not going to be spending and job numbers will continue to suffer for it.
Obama's mortgage modification schemes have only prolonged the agony of delinquent borrowers and the real estate market.
Until Obama starts to show same basic understanding of the facts about what is needed the economy will continue to suck.
So far nothing he or any of his disciples have come up with has really worked and until he learns that his amateurs need to be replaced by people with some real business management talent and experience a mind set that contributes so much to the problem with despair will continue.
Until people feel better about the direction we are going in economically they are not going to be spending and job numbers will continue to suffer for it.
let me guess, you want to break out that trite republican solution to any American problem: lower taxes
Let me guess, you want to break out that trite democrat solution to any American problem: steal income.
and as always, you would be wrong
I'm going to be trying to sell a house soon. Not looking forward to it at all.
There is never anything wrong with less taxes. The govt should always have to justify taking money from citizens, not the other way around.
fully half those who received loan modifications thru obama's hamp (home affordable modification program) have redefaulted
Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg
good money after bad, subprime methodologies on top of subprime failures, like heroin to an addict
house oversight in pelosi's congress and tarp inspector general neil barofsky declare hamp a "miserable failure" which "actually harms the people it was intended to help"
Obama Loan-Modification Effort
how many of these people the us taxpayer is subsidizing are living in newer, larger and more upgraded homes than you?
and where are the results?
the collapse of housing is what brought us here
and there's still no basement in sight
that's a catastrophic concern to the masses folks with killer mortgages on homes now worth so much less than what they paid
to all the industries dependent on real estate and construction
Then explain to me why the 2000s were the slowest decade (even if you stop counting it before the Great Recession) for economic growth since the Great Depression?
Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth? - NYTimes.com
Even if you discount the Great Recession, average economic growth in the 2000s was a mere 2.39% (if you include it, it was 1.66%). The 1970s - a decade we all know was pretty crappy - average growth was 3.29% - nearly TWICE as good as the 2000s.
So if there's "never anything wrong" with tax cuts - why did the 2000s suck so much for the overall economy. And especially, why did it suck for nearly everyone except the top 1% of earners? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be "good for the economy". I see no evidence that they did anyone except the wealthiest Americans any good. And if those wealthiest Americans were supposed to create jobs with the money they get back from the government, why didn't that happen? Unemployment rates went from 4.2% to a peak high of 10.6% - ALL with the Bush tax cuts in force. So, why didn't those tax cuts create jobs? They didn't.
Additionally, those oh-so-wonderful tax cuts, along with the Afghan and Iraq Wars are largely responsible for our annual budget deficits and amount to at least 10% more than stimulus and TARP combined. So, unless you're going to justify the tax cuts by cutting the spending FIRST, then you shouldn't simply celebrate tax cuts as being automatically good - especially when they are paired with two unfunded wars and are the single largest factor contributing to our deficit.
Critics Still Wrong on What
The myth that the pay for themselves is utterly false.
Economist's View: The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
This is just one of many studies who show that to be utterly false. Indeed, under the BEST economic circumstances, only 28% of lost revenues can be recouped by simple growth.
Left to their own devices, indeed the Bush Tax Cuts would expand the deficit by 100% of GDP by 2050.
Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph
So, how again is there "never anything wrong" with less taxes? There is little evidence that there was anything right with the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, they are the largest single cause of the deficit, they left two wars unfunded (or paid for by our grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren), and did nothing to spark economic growth.
If you argue that the stimulus hasn't done much for economic growth (and you could), then your argument would be based on the fact that post-recession, the average GDP growth is 2.918%, whereas Bush's decade overall was either 2.39% or 1.66%. So Obama's average GDP growth is already better than Bush's was. So the stimulus has produced a GDP that is higher than Bush's tax cuts could do and while they added to the deficit, they didn't add as much as the tax cuts and wars did.
So based on your analysis, the higher we raise taxes, the more growth we get. Got it! :thumbs:
i missed it. please point out where in that post such conclusion was posited
If tax cuts hurt the economy, then tax hikes should be great for it. Seems pretty simple to me.
good. then we all acknowledge that you made that **** up
Then explain to me why the 2000s were the slowest decade (even if you stop counting it before the Great Recession) for economic growth since the Great Depression?
Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth? - NYTimes.com
Even if you discount the Great Recession, average economic growth in the 2000s was a mere 2.39% (if you include it, it was 1.66%). The 1970s - a decade we all know was pretty crappy - average growth was 3.29% - nearly TWICE as good as the 2000s.
So if there's "never anything wrong" with tax cuts - why did the 2000s suck so much for the overall economy. And especially, why did it suck for nearly everyone except the top 1% of earners? I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to be "good for the economy". I see no evidence that they did anyone except the wealthiest Americans any good. And if those wealthiest Americans were supposed to create jobs with the money they get back from the government, why didn't that happen? Unemployment rates went from 4.2% to a peak high of 10.6% - ALL with the Bush tax cuts in force. So, why didn't those tax cuts create jobs? They didn't.
Additionally, those oh-so-wonderful tax cuts, along with the Afghan and Iraq Wars are largely responsible for our annual budget deficits and amount to at least 10% more than stimulus and TARP combined. So, unless you're going to justify the tax cuts by cutting the spending FIRST, then you shouldn't simply celebrate tax cuts as being automatically good - especially when they are paired with two unfunded wars and are the single largest factor contributing to our deficit.
Critics Still Wrong on What
The myth that the pay for themselves is utterly false.
Economist's View: The Myth That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
This is just one of many studies who show that to be utterly false. Indeed, under the BEST economic circumstances, only 28% of lost revenues can be recouped by simple growth.
Left to their own devices, indeed the Bush Tax Cuts would expand the deficit by 100% of GDP by 2050.
Ezra Klein - The Bush tax cuts' effect on the deficit in one graph
So, how again is there "never anything wrong" with less taxes? There is little evidence that there was anything right with the Bush tax cuts. Indeed, they are the largest single cause of the deficit, they left two wars unfunded (or paid for by our grandchildren, if not our great grandchildren), and did nothing to spark economic growth.
If you argue that the stimulus hasn't done much for economic growth (and you could), then your argument would be based on the fact that post-recession, the average GDP growth is 2.918%, whereas Bush's decade overall was either 2.39% or 1.66%. So Obama's average GDP growth is already better than Bush's was. So the stimulus has produced a GDP that is higher than Bush's tax cuts could do and while they added to the deficit, they didn't add as much as the tax cuts and wars did.
Not really a concern. The recession did end in 2009, but recession and house prices dont have much to do with each other.
Like it or not the housing market in the US went nuts for 10 years with massive price rises and that takes time to get back to what it should be. Some places will go faster, others slower, but with the exception of the uber rich areas most likely, then house prices are still going decline for a while yet.
And it of course does not help that US banks are so screwed up that they dont loan people money any more, and of course the fact that the average US consumer debt is huge.. people cant get money to buy houses, and that will push prices down too.
Lowering or raising taxes is going to have absolutely nothing to do with the prices of homes or mortgages or the stabilization of the housing market.
Rather, there should be a re-writing of regulations with regards to the housing and mortgage markets. I'm not saying more or less regulations - just a re-writing of them to prevent the kind of fraud that made such a housing and mortgage bubble that was so damaging to our economy.
fully half those who received loan modifications thru obama's hamp (home affordable modification program) have redefaulted
Half of U.S. Home Loan Modifications Default Again (Update1) - Bloomberg
good money after bad, subprime methodologies on top of subprime failures, like heroin to an addict
house oversight in pelosi's congress and tarp inspector general neil barofsky declare hamp a "miserable failure" which "actually harms the people it was intended to help"
Obama Loan-Modification Effort
how many of these people the us taxpayer is subsidizing are living in newer, larger and more upgraded homes than you?
and where are the results?
the collapse of housing is what brought us here
and there's still no basement in sight
that's a catastrophic concern to the masses of folks with killer mortgages on homes now worth so much less than what they paid, to all the industries dependent on real estate and construction...
Ya... because those loan modification deals are designed to cause people to default. Miss 1 payment and you've defaulted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?