Jul152014
Is current housing weakness a fundamental shift away from home ownership?
Housing sector weakness may be a sign of a change in attitudes away from home ownership as defining the American Dream.
When house prices crashed in 2008, we had an opportunity to usher in a new era of affordable housing with a lower percentage of income devoted to housing in the United States. With less income going toward housing, more income is freed up to spend on other goods and services, stimulating the economy in a sustainable way.
However, that isn’t what politicians decided to do. No, they decided to bail out the banks with a plethora of bailouts aimed at supporting the banks and the loanowners who owed them money. If we had purged the excessive debts created during the housing-credit bubble through foreclosure and recycling the homes, we would be enjoying low, affordable house prices and a strongly growing economy. Instead, we have a weak economy and a weak housing market.
Houses are as expensive as current income levels can push them at near record low interest rates. Housing is weak because job and wage growth is weak, and marginal buyers are getting priced out. It’s really not more complicated than that. And since buyers are now forced to pay the maximum amount their incomes can afford, less disposable income is available to spend on goods and services, weakening the economy.
In short, housing and the economy are weak because we continue to divert excessive amounts of money to the banks. Does the federal reserve recognize this? Of course not; to do so would be tantamount to treason to the member banks that own the federal reserve. We are still paying for the bailouts of lenders and loanowners with a weak economy and high-priced housing.
Fed minutes outline the different reasons housing has been sluggish
July 9, 2014, 3:20 PM ET
Higher house prices and higher interest rates priced out marginal buyers and hedge funds, so since June of 2013, home sales fell, and they will continue to be weak for the foreseeable future.
The housing market has been hit by factors ranging from tough credit standards to burdensome student loans to a lean supply of properties on the market, according to minutes released Wednesday from a recent Federal Reserve meeting.
Closings for new and existing homes had a rough first quarter, prompting Wall Street analysts to lower their annual sales forecast for 2014. Prominent economists had been expecting low mortgage rates to support home sales. But cheap loans haven’t been enough to overcome the below factors discussed by Fed officials in June, according to the minutes.
Prominent economists were looking at the market through rose colored glasses and succumb to their optimism bias and hoping for the best. It was obvious to anyone who looked with objectivity that house sales would be weaker as high prices drove hedge funds from the market. Prices were not pushed higher by surging demand from owner-occupants — the only way housing markets achieve the elusive “escape velocity” economists where hoping for, so when the investor demand left, owner-occupant demand did not take its place. Until the economy creates large numbers of high-paying jobs, which is the real problem they don’t mention, we won’t have strong housing demand.
- Tough credit standards
Credit standards are not tough; they are prudent. Lenders are not giving Ponzis and deadbeats loans; we tried that once, and it didn’t work out very well.
- High down payments
High compared to what? The FHA will give nearly anyone a 3.5% down loan for amounts far in excess of the GSE conforming limit. Apparently, even 3.5% down is too much with how high house prices are.
- Weak demand from young families, driven by burdensome student loans
(See: Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019)
- Lot shortages
- A low supply of “desirable” homes on the market
This is a direct result of lender’s policies to restrict inventory through delaying foreclosures with loan modifications and denying short sales. They could fix this problem today by simply changing their policies.
- The pool of foreclosures and other distressed properties
If by this them mean there is not near enough foreclosures and distressed properties on the market, then they are right; unfortunately, I think they mean there are too many foreclosures and distressed sales, which is the opposite of what’s true.
If there were more of these properties on the market, we wouldn’t have lot shortages or a low supply of homes. Investment funds would buy some, and flippers would buy some, improve the properties, and put more desirable inventory on the market. Flippers who add value through property improvement can’t do their work if no distressed properties are available for them to renovate and make more desirable.
- Rising construction costs
Rising construction costs are not due to high demand for construction materials. New home construction is still in the doldrums. If prices are higher, it’s entirely due to federal reserve policies inflating all prices. Much of the speculative money floating around is going into commodities and driving up builder costs.
And then there’s this potential biggie: “The possibility that more persistent structural changes in housing demand associated with an aging population and evolving lifestyle preferences were boosting demand for multifamily units at the expense of single-family homes.”
The real question is whether or not home ownership is still the American Dream. I’ve documented in many posts the issues holding back demand (See: Most Millennials won’t qualify for a mortgage until 2019, Imprudent student debt debilitates Millennial home shoppers, and Typical sources of housing demand largely absent)
The days of fog-a-mirror and get-a-loan are gone for good. The bigger question is whether or not the structural problems and adjustments are merely delaying the inevitable, or if there is a grass-roots shift in attitudes toward home ownership. I do believe the current generation won’t have the unbridled enthusiasm of the previous generation — thankfully — and they will be more cautious about buying, 
which is a natural reaction to the carnage they witnessed, but ownership is primal, and no matter how bad lenders and government officials screw everything up, people will still want to own if it’s advantageous for them to do so, and probably even if it’s not.
With high prices and little prospect for the above-average appreciation the Baby Boomers experienced, owning a home isn’t a “must” like it was 30 years ago, so Millennials don’t feel much urgency. Also, with realtor credibility at less than zero, Millennials aren’t as easily duped by fantasies of boundless appreciation as previous generations either.
The American Dream is not dead. The idea of owning a home will rise from the ashes, and the American Dream will once again include owning the roof over your head and the floor beneath your feet. Personally, I would like to see a return to the traditional view of the American Dream: truly owning a home free of any debt. That’s where peace-of-mind reunites with the American Dream.
[listing mls=”OC14147702″]
A fundamental shift away from ownership is well underway (NOT by choice, but by force) as in economic landscapes where wages do not not rise >inflation, standards of living actually decline with price inflation.
The problems of weak job and wage growth wouldn’t necessarily hurt home ownership. If people wanted to own homes, they still could, they would just pay less money because that’s all their incomes would support. The government and the banks want high prices and high home ownership rates, and that isn’t going to happen.
el Bogstradamus-
After taking my family to dinner at Mario’s the other night, I decided to head up the street and check out Sea Bridge park in your neck of the woods. I had never been there before, and it was downright shocking how dirty it was. Trash everywhere and tons of people. Instead of enjoying ourselves, my wife did a one person beach cleanup operation while I watched the kids. A lot of the litter was going directly into the harbor. Has anybody ever complained to the city? It really would be a beautiful park if people took care of it.
Very unfortunate the way these non-residents carry-on, and seems get a bit worse every year. The homes on Portofino are ‘taint’ because of it, even despite being behind a big gate, a nice cul-de-sac and all of the water. Sad really.
btw, I always hit the SuperMex on Beach when my favorite food is calling. They also have DosEquis lager on draft 😀 which is hard to find, so I haven’t been to Mario’s in ages. How was the food?
PS: Please thank your wife for helping out.
Ah yes… I remember when that tap got installed. That was the SuperMex that I went to during high school and college, always ordering the #14. A couple of the waiters knew me pretty well since I was there pretty often. Does the SuperMex on PCH not serve DosEquis? Seems like that would be closer to you.
I got my wife hooked on Mario’s when we lived in HB and she still likes going there. We usually go to the one at Five Points but this time decided to try the one on Springdale & Edinger. It didn’t seem as good for some reason, but it was still decent.
The PCH SuperMex only has the amber on tap, so the lager is in the bottle. Bah! Besides, the ‘scenery’ at the one on Beach is much more ‘scenic’ in comparison, especially this time of year 😉
Construction costs is another reason why housing won’t go down too much in the next downturn. I just fixed the roof of my new homes, the material bill came out to 4k and I was using middle of the road shingles. I hired my brother to do it plus myself so the cost is low around 7k. Otherwise it would easily cost 10-12k. If you add fixing the regular maintenance items such as plumbing, floor, bathroom, kitchen than that’s another 30-40k. If you break up this cost in 5 or 6 years is still come out to 5-6k per year. Money that the average person don’t have.
China has used a huge quantities of materials to build new cities (many are empty) which put a lot of upward pressure on commodity prices until several years ago. I’m still waiting for China to go more bust and the stock market, so I can get my discount on material and labor prices to do more improvements on my house.
We honestly need a reset in the economy to get rid of all the speculations and bad investments to start over anew. Eventually the time will come and the bankers and shills will be out of bullets to fight it.
What about land values? I think that is really the key to housing value. What BenShalom says above about building costs is completely true – but land values can decline (and sometimes do).
A person who buys a house in LA for $800K and a person who buys the same house/floorplan in Texas for $400K are paying maybe a 20% differential in the price of the improvements…but the differential in land values is much greater.
This is what makes housing in the LA area so expensive – land is costly. Of course, this is a function of the scarcity of desirable land and the willingness of people with money to pay for it. When there’s less money available to buy that house it has to decline in price if the owner wants to sell it, and that decline comes out of the land value.
I’m just saying it’s one of the reasons for it to stay up. Look at San Gabriel Valley in cities like Arcadia. The cost to build a very nice home maybe 400-500k but the land price is $1,00 million due to neighbor, school, fengshui whatever…So land prices will out-weight construction costs in highly desirable areas. Cato Institute has an historical table of land prices in the US since 1818 showing a cycle of 18 years for the most part. The last peak was 2006 and the prior peak was 1989 or 17 years. Note that there are 10 cycles and 7 of them is either 17 or 18 years and note how they not always align with the business cycle showing in another column.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/great-18year-real-estate-cycle
The 18 year interval is a neat data point, but if you notice, the last time that held true was 1925, almost 90 years ago. I would take that as a sign that the creation of the Fed, along with greater Federal intervention in the economy since the Great Depression have pretty much changed that paradigm. Since 1973, the average housing cycle has been 11 years between peaks. I think that’s more likely what we’ll see this time. The 2006 cycle lasting 17 years but was extended due to a lot of policy decisions made by the Fed and Congress. A lot of housing observers thought 2002 was going to be the peak, but then the proliferation of reckless mortgage products began, extending the housing cycle by another 4 years and making the bubble larger than anybody could have imagined.
People will speculate in the 19th century and they will continue to speculate in 20th century and beyond for various reasons. But the fact and the matter is it has created some notable cycles over the years. Your argument is kinda weird since you said the FED altered the 18 years cycle from the 19th century and than you said that the FED prolong the cycle in the last one to drag it out to 17 years. The issue here is whatever the FED do or doesn’t do, the cycle will end eventually and history (nature) has shown that it has a high tendency to be 18 years for real estate with or without the help of the FED. Even the period from 1925 to 1979 (cycle of 48 and 6 years) can be seen as three 18 year period. And the period from 1973 to 1989 can be another cycle of 16 year (cycle of 6+10 year).
Even Paul Volcker has realized that there is a business cycle in his 1979 book and the FED should steer clear of messing too much with it.
You are looking for patterns in randomness. It doesn’t matter that the last cycle was 17 years due to Fed actions. The prior three cycles were 48, 6, and 10 years due partly to Fed actions. The number 17 is not any more significant than the prior three numbers.
Also, you are using the 6 year cycle for 1979 twice to get your predetermined conclusion to fit (48+6, 6+10), which means it doesn’t fit. The cycles don’t line up in 18 year intervals no matter how much you massage the data.
You either believe in cycles or you don’t. I’m not trying to massage anything. I’m just saying that even cycles that are not 18 years can be related if you add them up and/or divided equally (in one case they overlap). Sure the FED is god, they can create and destroy the economy at will. Did they prevent the last recession? Will they stop the next one from happening ever?
Apparently you never heard of chaos theory which is a huge part of modern science. Its state that even highly chaotic (random) systems will eventually produce recognizable patterns if there are enough repetitions.
I agree that real estate is cyclical. It’s something I’ve argued on this blog numerous times. I just don’t agree that the cycle is every 18 years. Since you are interested in this subject, take a look at the Shiller 100 year chart for real estate. Every spike or bump on this chart represents a market peak. Since WW1 there has been a cycle an average of once per decade.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2011-Case-SHiller-updated.png
1925
1940
1947
1954
1973
1979
1989
2006
That’s eight market peaks in 90 years, starting at the end of WW1. (The chart goes through 2010.)
I believe the current cycle will peak out within the next 3 years based on lack of affordability, which would keep this 10-11 year average interval intact.
I’m of the opinion that the new mortgage rules will fundamentally change the cycle. We will still have ups and downs, but unless they repeal Dodd-Frank, the highs and lows should be much less extreme.
The cycle used to be dependent upon financing. It starts with stable fixed-rate mortgage financing the proceeds through adjustable rates, interest-only, and in the last cycle negative amortization. During the cycle there is also a progressive relaxation of debt-to-income ratios and and concurrent increase in Ponzi finance. Lender attempts to infuse affordability also ads instability, and depending on how stupid lenders get, determines the highs and lows, and to some degree the length of the cycle.
The previous cycle should have peaked in 2002 and 2003, but lenders bought themselves three years by introducing negative amortization loans, abandoning all qualification standards, and fully embracing Ponzi finance.
+1
Historical cyclical data is useless without a current perspective of analysis.
I do not blindly believe in cycle. But I do realize their important. Say in the next three years, if I don’t see signs that the market is falling over (due to the economy turning down) than it is likely that it will peak later maybe at the 16/17 year mark. Actually, the new mortgage regulations will prevent any short drop in the near future since most people have the capability to pay it back. Even a drop of 15-20 is still a correction and the the 20% down make sure that there’s always some equity. This law actually supports a much longer, though stable, run/flat market in real estate prices at least in the next few years. But hey, laws can always be repealed. Just look at how they repealed Glass Steagall.
Land value is a residual calculation. A buyer of raw land or lots must back out construction costs when calculating what they will pay for it. If construction costs go up, it comes directly out of land residual and lowers its value.
More well paying jobs moving offshore.
Goooooo recovery! 😛
Thousands to lose their jobs as Microsoft prepares biggest ever round of layoffs
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-lose-jobs-microsoft-prepares-biggest-ever-round-114013833.html
Those are a lot of people who won’t be buying homes; in fact, they may become sellers because they can no longer afford them.
Most of those people came over in the Nokia deal, which means they were already outsourced (Nokia is a Finnish company) and their jobs were already doomed (Nokia was a failing company prior to the Microsoft acquisition).
Credit Suisse: Homebuyers discouraged by rising prices
Homebuyers held off purchasing homes in June due to rising home prices, Credit Suisse reported in their monthly traffic survey of real estate agents.
“Comments from agents in June suggest that buyers are growing increasingly discouraged by economic and employment conditions, and as a result, have made the decision to hold-off on purchases—particularly at current prices,” the company reported.
Out of the 40 markets surveyed, 32 saw lower than expected traffic, five were in line with expectations and three saw better than expected traffic. Those numbers were all a decline from May, when only 28 were below expectations and five saw better than expected traffic.
Los Angeles (traffic index at 45) — “Still seeing lots of foreign investors.”
San Diego (traffic index at 54) — “Prices may have risen too fast. Buyers are having difficulties qualifying for loans. The FHA MI is knocking a lot of first-time homebuyers out.”
Watch CNBC’s Rick Santelli nearly lose his mind talking inflation
During the “Fast Money Halftime Report,” the show’s panelists, which included CNBC’s Rick Santelli and Steve Liesman, were debating the Federal Reserve Bank’s policies and its role in the U.S. economy.
During the discussion, Santelli and Liesman became embroiled in a debate that left the traders behind Santelli applauding and catcalling and ultimately led Santelli to walk off the set.
The specific issue that launched Santelli’s one-sided shouting match was whether or not Fed policy is “behind the curve.” Santelli called on the Fed to act more like bankers and let the market dictate where interest rates should be.
The debate ultimately devolved into the aforementioned shouting match with the normally bespectacled Santelli removing his glasses and screaming into the camera.
Liesman, for his part, maintained his cool and landed the ultimate haymaker on Santelli.
“It’s impossible for you to have been more wrong, Rick,” Liesman said. “Your call for inflation, the destruction of the dollar, the failure of the U.S. economy to rebound…”
Liesman continues:
“Rick, it’s impossible for you to have been more wrong. Every single bit of advice you gave would have lost people money, Rick… There is no piece of advice that you’ve given that’s worked, Rick. Not a single one… The higher interest rates never came. The inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened. The dollar never crashed, Rick. There isn’t a single one that’s worked for you.”
Check out the video below to see the whole debate and watch Santelli nearly lose his mind (around the six-minute mark).
link to article with video
The WSJ is following up on the ZH article covering illegal outflows of hot money from China.
What happens to RE values in Irvine, SGV, etc. if the Chinese stop showing up?
Chinese Banks Halt Experimental Yuan-Remittance Program
http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinese-banks-halt-experimental-yuan-remittance-program-1405345453?tesla=y&mod=WSJASIA_hpp_sections_china&mg=reno64-wsj&cb=logged0.49770964351850366
Prices will take a dump? That’s why I did not buy in the SGV even though it was much closer to work. Now I’m commuting to LA from OC. I knew it was way overpriced.
I knew one or two folks at work who is cashing out their 1-2 million dollar homes in Arcadia to buy a condo in the same area or move to a cheaper area.
If this isn’t temporary, it will be a real problem for the US housing market. If that source of demand is abruptly and permanently removed, we will sell a fewer houses, particularly in places like Irvine popular with Chinese buyers.
In case you missed this yesterday…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/10/21/much-bigger-than-the-shutdown-niall-fergusons-public-flogging-of-paul-krugman/
Is Paul Krugman leaving Princeton in quiet disgrace?
Forbes contributor Ralph Benko jumps on the Paul Krugman-bashing bandwagon by penning an article that hints Krugman’s departure from his Princeton position is less-than-ideal.
Krugman, who is still penning economic thunder for the New York Times, left his position at the university as professor of economics and international affairs.
Benko cites two sources that seem to indicate Krugman left his position in disgrace.
The first is Krugman being “thoroughly indicted and publicly eviscerated for intellectual dishonesty by Harvard’s Niall Ferguson in a hard-hitting three-part series in the Huffington Post, beginning here, and with a coda in Project Syndicate, all summarized at Forbes.com.”
The second is shortly after Krugman’s departure was announced no less than the revered Paul Volcker, former Fed chair and Princeton alum, made a comment — subject unnamed — sounding as if directed at Prof. Krugman:
To the Daily Princetonian (later reprised by the Wall Street Journal) Volcker stated with refreshing bluntness:
“The responsibility of any central bank is price stability. … They ought to make sure that they are making policies that are convincing to the public and to the markets that they’re not going to tolerate inflation.”
Krugman seems publicly unfazed by the criticism. Or is he?
His latest piece ran Sunday in the New York Times and struck a notably different tone as it dealt with health care and largely steered clear of economics and politics.
Time will tell if Krugman’s resignation, and the alleged circumstances surrounding it, made him a changed man.
And today a retraction by HousingWire…
3 amazingly accurate Paul Krugman predictions from 2011
http://www.housingwire.com/blogs/1-rewired/post/30647-amazingly-accurate-paul-krugman-predictions-from-2011
Soon after posting, I received an email from a popular economics blogger, who took me to task for publishing the article in the first place.
“Ferguson has become a laughing stock among analysts (remember his declaration that public employment was soaring under Obama – ignoring the temporary Census hiring! ROFLOL),” they wrote.
“Ferguson has been wrong about everything from inflation to employment … one good historical book doesn’t make him an expert on everything,” they added.
Considering that calling out economic predictions as wrong can lead to nothing short of celebrity temper tantrums caught on video, I promised the blogger that I would do right by Krugman. And this blog is just that.
In July 2011, HousingWire magazine ran a profile of Krugman on our cover. It won awards then, but even more amazing is that Krugman made several economic predictions that proved to be accurate, unlike CNBC’s Santelli.
Here are those three predictions:
1. No writedowns at Fannie and Freddie
In 2011, people were pushing for writedowns. Hard. The FHFA acting director Ed DeMarco held his ground and resisted forcing writedowns at the government-sponsored enterprises. A year later, there was a huge push to get him out.
Today, we still seem no closer to such homeowner relief.
In the interview Krugman said he favored the writedowns, but pragmatically knew it would never happen. Nailed it.
2. There would be a third round of quantitative easing
Krugman even had advice on how to best do this, more than a year before the Fed went ahead with its plans:
“I recommend government bond purchases being focused on buying agency debt, corporate debt. I’m still of the belief there is only so much that can be done with the federal balance sheet.”
“The only way the government can get traction is if QE3 is accompanied by signals that the Fed has somewhat raised its inflation target. If we made it 3 or 4% would be the really effective thing.”
(Last I checked it stood at 2%, but still. Wow.)
3. The end is not near
Krugman’s accompanying slide show presentation at a HousingWire event was titled “The Mess We’re In,” and warned about thinking it would be an easy fix.
“People make the mistake of thinking this environment is so weird it can’t last much longer. This can go on for quite awhile, far longer than most people are currently thinking.”
Three years later, still no end in sight. Bam.
No comment on Krugman, but Niall Ferguson should not be quoted on anything after his disastrous, inaccurate (lying?) Newsweek article.
I have’t seen the article you’re referring to, but his three-part article on Huffington Post where he goes after Krugman is powerful. He takes Krugman’s own words and beats him into submission with it.
The bigger Point Ferguson makes is about the level of civil discourse. Krugman is a bully, and he deserved to get punched in the nose. Krugman’s condescension, name-calling, and general smugness is a sign of insecurity. He will always be a darling of the Left, and partisans will always embrace him because he tells them what they want to hear, but fewer people will take him seriously as an economist after this episode, and given that he is frequently wrong, that’s a good thing.
spitting in paul krugmans face has been added to my bucket list
My problem is not Krugman one way or another – don’t care who loves him or hates him, and I’m fine with Volcker criticizing him. I don’t like some things Krugman says, but I cut him some slack for saying (in print) that the Iraq War was a bad idea, back in a time when all other journalists turned yellow, and conservatives (and many liberals) abandoned their principles in the face of lies and fear.
My problem is that Niall Ferguson should be unemployed, based on his article about Obama in Newsweek, which was so shamefully inaccurate that some people wondered whether he should keep his job at Harvard. Highlights of his “analysis” included blaming Obama for job losses recorded under Bush.
Are your feelings payback for Krugman being right about Iraq?
Maybe conservatives are whiners who need to man up? After call
Conservatives don’t want to man up. They want to invade Iraq for the third time.
Some of Ferguson’s cutting-edge article on Obama (August 2012):
Damn – just damn.
Bush was in office through late January 2009, and sane analysts agree that you can’t really blame a president for economic performance in his first year.
How is this not the behaviour of a liar and a bully? Is it only okay when conservatives make shit up?
More from Niall Ferguson, who took Paul Krugman to task for his lack of politesse:
I do not think Niall Ferguson is fit to lecture anyone as to their getting the facts right, or as to how to treat people.
I am not a supporter of Ferguson. I wasn’t engaged in his other talks and writing, and I imagine he is not perfect, but it doesn’t take away from the power of his indictment of Krugman.
I suggest you take off the partisan glasses and read his three posts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-euro_b_4060733.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/paul-krugman-housing-crisis_b_4067580.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/niall-ferguson/krugtron-the-invincible-p_b_4073956.html
I concede the truth of this – I find Krugman arrogant. I have trouble taking the rest of Ferguson’s article seriously, because he is such a disreputable liar and clearly every bit as disgusting as Krugman, and probably more so.
Are you aware of how many conservative bloggers and columnists routinely call those who disagree with them “unpatriotic,” “traitor,” and “insane”? Do you have any idea how many times Charles Krauthammer questioned the sanity of opponents of the Iraq War?
Partisan I definitely am, but I am bothered – ah, hell with it: I am pissed off – by your obliviousness to the sickening behavior of extreme rightists while you focus, for some reason, on Krugman’s asinine behavior.
And this is definitely partisan on your part.
You berate people like Lawrence Yun, Yellen, Krugman, and anyone not of your ideology for their opinions repeatedly on this blog. I am fine with this – much of what you say is supported, and I believe that Fed heads deserve contempt, even if some (not all) of your objections are based on Austrian/libertarian theories which I find laughable.
But then why go about tut-tutting over the bad manners of Krugman because he’s some big ol’ meanie who says mean things, and because he’s wrong (even though he claims near-perfection)? Do you know how silly that looks?
For me, it’s just kind of a sadness: I look around on the Internet for sanity, and some of those who are offering doses of it are conservative. So I follow them – hey, I can use to see Obama spanked hard on NSA and groveling to banksters. But there’s always a price to pay, whether it’s some nutty repost of a Glenn Beck (Jesus Christ – who listens to that guy anymore?) by somebody I really want to respect, or Paulist/Austrian libertarian twaddle (sorry to be mean, but you’d say the same of Keynesians).
I feel completely fucking unrepresented. Every clique, every party I know has some ideas which disgust me. The problem of this hyper-partisan time is that the splinters which are occurring make both name-calling and deservedly fringe philosophies more acceptable, as people claw their way around for some sort of meaning and certainty.
I share your appalled disgust at the ridiculous state of government support for housing, the abuse of markets, and the lies of banks and realtors. I appreciate that this is a site which does not generally push issues like gay hatred, immigrant hatred, birther-Benghazi-bullshit, and plain nuttiness, as so many sites whose content on real-estate happenings I’d otherwise want to read.
This is a really disgusting time to look for a tribe.
My rep in congress, Diana DeGette, pushed a mortgage-relief for underwater idiots who, as you say, would best be served by foreclosure. What’s my alternative? To vote for opponent, who’s some tea-nut who wants to give tax cuts to fetuses and go to war with Iran.
It’s depressing. I need to go vomit.
[…] So far that delicate handoff has been a dismal failure. […]