Bush's advisor: Housing slump to only last six more months

So when the price of gas or groceries comes down, do we call it the gas slump or the grocery slump?

The "housing slump" is mostly a media-created issue. Why should houses be immune from the same market forces everything else is subject to? And isn't this really just a buying opportunity for first-time home buyers?

Or is it now a right to have an always-appreciating house?

 

What happened to the "ownership society"?

 

Gas and groceries aren't as big a part of our net worth, and are, therefore, not as important.

 

Not a thing. More people own homes now than ever before. And when prices go down, even more can afford to buy. Or is that too difficult for you to grasp?

And you conveniently ignore the original question. Is it now a "right" to have an always appreciating home? Because I'm pretty sure I missed that in my last reading of the Constitution.

 

I ignored the original question because it was a stupid one.

Your constant attempt to reframe any conversation so that you can use your wingnut talking points doesn't go unnoticed, or unloathed.

 

what he means is six more months at this shitty rate, then a future of worse houseing problems.

 

Ask someone from Midland or Odessa circa 1986. When your livelihood depends on it, yes it is a slump.

When the house you own depreciates 30% in value, wiping out much of your life assets, then yes, old_tony, I'd call that a slump too.

Tool box.

 

That's true, and that mind-set is part of the problem.

My house is and always will be one thing to me: MY HOME. For purposes of my daily, monthly or yearly budgeting, its "net worth" is NOT part of the equation.

That it has appreciated from $130,000 to $340,000 in market value since 1996 is nice, but it does not affect my current finances one bit. Nor should it. That the "slump" has caused it to drop $40,000 in value is interesting, but once again, it plays no part in my finances. It was only a paper gain anyway. Not real in any way unless I actually sold the house (which, of course, would have meant buying another one at an inflated price).

It's nice to be able to have that "house value" to fall back on in an emergency if it is absolutely necessary, but one should never "feel wealthy" because they have a house that has appreciated. That only leads to needless loans and continued debt.

 

If the price of groceries or gas goes down, it's good for most consumers, because these are products they buy all the time and aren't investments. You aren't going to turn around and try to resell gasoline or a loaf of bread to someone. But if the value of your home drops, that's a pretty big deal because it's a huge investment. It's like having a stock portfolio drop in value.
And considering that home prices had been rising since the Depression, that's a pretty big deal...especially for people who are looking to sell a home in order to finance another one.
Yeah, in the short term, this is good for first time homebuyers...although they may have trouble getting credit. But for other people, this is bad. The one good thing is that there are areas of the country that are cushioned from this...places where people didn't go crazy with overbuilding or flipping properties.

 

I'm hoping it stays in the crapper for a few more years, when I'll be looking to get in

 

Any asset is part of your net worth, and therefore, should be considered as such when you ... plan for retirement, for example.

Although I don't know much about the housing market specifically, I do have a better understanding than most of the cyclic nature of the economy (including that of housing) and its importance in planning for the future, whether it be for retirement or to simply make a profit.

The biggest problem isn't people taking on too much house (that is a big problem, don't get me wrong). The problem are these fucking ARMs and balloons and folks not understanding what they're getting. Taking on too much debt is at least tertiary in this discussion.

*Did that make any sense, at all?*