Another article showing concern in the housing market- yet the author may have lacked critical thinking

Basic Econ 101, last 40 years have been a particularly long economic experiment that has failed spectacularly.
Instead of tossing out the bad policies that don’t work from the 80’s we just double down (even though most of what has changed for handling children, loans, the poor and middle class doesn’t work and will never work)


I’m afraid to ask what the solution might be?
 
No it is real uncontrolled capitalism at its purest.
When you have a private central bank that will lend other banks as much fiat as the they care to print using rehypothecated assets to do it, but smaller private investors play by different rules completely - explain to me how that is capitalistic?

Again, not arguing whether pure capitalism is good or bad - just your definition. I am unsure what it is - but its not a free market.
 
When you have a private central bank that will lend other banks as much fiat as the they care to print using rehypothecated assets to do it, but smaller private investors play by different rules completely - explain to me how that is capitalistic?

Again, not arguing whether pure capitalism is good or bad - just your definition. I am unsure what it is - but its not a free market.
You assume this is new? The 1980’s put this trend into overdrive.
In your defense the US has never been a pure capitalist society and if it were it would have failed long ago.
The private central bank is not supposed to be controlled by the government making it a word I’m not allowed to say here if it entangles to the government.

When a corporate entity influences government that isn’t communist and is considered the end game of unlimited capitalism.

When a private entity grows to a monopoly of a field (be it money supply/banking, real estate, goods) that is the end game of a capitalist system ready to fail .

Capitalism always concentrates power into a single entity (always) and your example is why it always fails eventually unless people in the system want to do the right thing and step back from the precipice placing limits on the entities.


Unless you have a strong NOT capitalist indifferent government overseeing a capitalist system you are likely to see nepotism and cronyism.

And this isn’t our first brush with Cronyism, it had an entire era back in a previous century before we had a fed.
Remember the company town era?
Remember “the boss “ era?
Remember the gilded era?
All excluded small investors , got entangled with the government and controlled small businesses and involved dirty tricks.
None would be communist/socialist either though .

People need to care about government, get educated and not elect bums so you get motivated people who know what they are doing and want to make positive changes in the world.

We the people have not been doing our collective jobs.
 
Last edited:
No it is real uncontrolled capitalism at its purest.

You assume this is new? The 1980’s put this trend into overdrive.

Were way off topic - so my last one - you specifically replied to me and said it was uncontrolled capitalism.

Now your just saying its not new?

So is it uncontrolled capitalism - if please explain, or just "not new" cronyism - which is more or less what I said in the first place.
 
Ha - the oil market is the epitamy of a free market. The end product itself has daily price discovery. If you own the mineral rights to land that is found to have oil on it - someone will pay you to develop it. If you have the skill and a few bucks you can actually buy an oil well.

I went to college with someone who ended up doing this sort of thing. Of course he worked in the oil business for big companies for a long time so he knew what he was doing - but he would buy marginal properties from the bigs when oil was low - so they wouldn't have to pay to shut them in. He would keep them producing for a few years, and when oil prices went up he would sell them. https://www.unitedexploration.com/direct-investing-in-oil-wells.html

No government subsidies - in fact the government is trying to destroy said market in varios ways.

It's not a free market when you cannot (or anybody else) start their own oil company for a multitude of reasons.
 
It's not a free market when you cannot (or anybody else) start their own oil company for a multitude of reasons.
Are you sure that's true? I was a little shocked myself when I discovered that the small oilman in Texas is still a thing. Owning his leases and selling oil he's pumped out of the ground by the tankerload with no backing by a BP/Exxon/Etc.
 
Are you sure that's true? I was a little shocked myself when I discovered that the small oilman in Texas is still a thing. Owning his leases and selling oil he's pumped out of the ground by the tankerload with no backing by a BP/Exxon/Etc.
It’s common around here to see old leases sold more than once - often the new company gets smaller and smaller …
 
Are you sure that's true? I was a little shocked myself when I discovered that the small oilman in Texas is still a thing. Owning his leases and selling oil he's pumped out of the ground by the tankerload with no backing by a BP/Exxon/Etc.
He is selling crude not refining it. Find out if you can start your own refinery facility (even if you had the cash) and get back to me.
 
Last edited:
These "60k" are buyers who backed out, which was 17% of the contracts that one company had (meaning that even in this supposed panic, more than 4 out of 5 deals did close).

* A house was available for sale.
* A buyer appeared and the price was agreed on.
* The buyer changed their mind.

Two big reasons for buyers backing out would be that on further consideration they think they're about to pay too much-- as they expect prices to drop. Or they don't like the APR / can't get approved for a mortgage.
I think today's mortgage rates are killing off A LOT of new buyers, and / or people who want to upgrade their standard of living. It's one thing to borrow well into 6 figures to purchase a home at 2.6%. It's quite another to pay almost 7% for the same amount of money.

Their payments end up too high, and they get knocked out of the box, and wind up not getting the loan. There are some lending institutions that are still remembering the pain from the 2008 housing fiasco. When banks were throwing money at just about anyone with 2 arms and 2 legs, who had a heartbeat.
 
I think today's mortgage rates are killing off A LOT of new buyers, and / or people who want to upgrade their standard of living. It's one thing to borrow well into 6 figures to purchase a home at 2.6%. It's quite another to pay almost 7% for the same amount of money.

Their payments end up too high, and they get knocked out of the box, and wind up not getting the loan. There are some lending institutions that are still remembering the pain from the 2008 housing fiasco. When banks were throwing money at just about anyone with 2 arms and 2 legs, who had a heartbeat.
No one really knows. If in 1970 you bought a house at 7%, in 1982 the prevailing mortgage rate would be more than double, and the house on average would be 3X the price. I am not disagreeing with you that it seems crazy, but we really don't know.

Having said that, I don't think most people buying now have thought it out in this manner - they just want a house now.
 
Here is a plot of the Fed funds rate for the last 25 years. So much of this period was subject to abnormally low interest rates to keep the economy from going into a deep recession and even depression. It started with 9-11 in 2001 causing the rate to go under 2% but when the economy started to recover, the Great Recession occurred in 2009 dropping interest rates to almost zero for 7 years, allowing consumers to pile on low interest debt through mortgages and helocs. Just when rates were on the climb again, Covid hit in 2001. So here we are with the rate climbing again and the question will be whether consumers can handle a return to “ normal “ rates. All three attempts in the last 25 years have failed due to one reason or another.


11EDDF10-42C3-40CD-9880-EFACC2C92643.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I have seen in Florida, first hand, investment firm buying up parts of a new home community direct from the builder, an entire subdivision of the community and then rent, most likely to workers at nearby a major UPS distribution center.(speculation on my part regarding UPS workers in a rural area, but the rest is fact)

If people simply stopped renting single family homes, the investors would sell them off. Conceptionally speaking, I've never understood why anyone would rent a SFH.
 
If people simply stopped renting single family homes, the investors would sell them off. Conceptionally speaking, I've never understood why anyone would rent a SFH.


Need and budget. A family that earns an average middle class salary cannot afford to buy a home and the rent on larger apartments is getting expensive. As an example, a single mother with two kids earning $60,000 is being stressed just renting an apartment for $2200 a month. That’s fairly typical around here.
 
If people simply stopped renting single family homes, the investors would sell them off. Conceptionally speaking, I've never understood why anyone would rent a SFH.
That is a silly statement. You RENT because yo NEED SOMEPLACE TO LIVE. There are not enough apartments (with most owned by corporations ) to satisfy demand for rental dwellings.
 
Need and budget. A family that earns an average middle class salary cannot afford to buy a home and the rent on larger apartments is getting expensive. As an example, a single mother with two kids earning $60,000 is being stressed just renting an apartment for $2200 a month. That’s fairly typical around here.
So are you saying that it's cheaper to rent a SFH then an apartment?
 
So are you saying that it's cheaper to rent a SFH then an apartment?


The problem can be that larger apartments are not available. They rent out quickly. The one or two bedroom apartments are more common.

Typical of this area and some others is that a single person or couple will rent a three bed apartment and then sell bedspace to cover the rent. Not far from me are apartments and townhomes that are occupied by “new arrivals” who do this. It’s common to see 6-8-10 people in such a place. How they get the finances or anything else is a mystery.

So the single mother rents the house and is house poor. She can add bedspacers as well but that’s complicated unless it’s someone she knows. I personally know of one single mom with three children. She has a house with four other people living there.
 
The problem can be that larger apartments are not available. They rent out quickly. The one or two bedroom apartments are more common.

That would explain why I've never had an issue getting an apartment


Typical of this area and some others is that a single person or couple will rent a three bed apartment and then sell bedspace to cover the rent. Not far from me are apartments and townhomes that are occupied by “new arrivals” who do this. It’s common to see 6-8-10 people in such a place. How they get the finances or anything else is a mystery.

So the single mother rents the house and is house poor. She can add bedspacers as well but that’s complicated unless it’s someone she knows. I personally know of one single mom with three children. She has a house with four other people living there.

Sounds like a lease violation to me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom