There are clearly a lot of sellers who know what they got, and will end up selling later for a lower price after chasing the market down, while incurring lots of costs between now and then.
Home sellers by state taking their unsold home off the market rather than reduce price
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
You took the words right off my keyboard and saved me some time.
2008 likely will not repeat itself because it’s not going to benefit the banks this time around.
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
Last time we had ours up for sale we were over run with buyers who wanted it only at reduced price and expected me to pay their closing costs. We sure got different attitude from the sellers whose homes we were interested in. It was "firm price, we pay no closing cost, take it or leave it."
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
When was the last time the US had a booming economy? 1960s?
Until the US exports more than in it imports, it is unquestionably impossible to have a booming economy.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2023
- Messages
- 1,446
I laugh at these people wasting their own money and wasting everybody’s time. In most cases they know they’ve priced high, their real estate agents have already talked to them, and they should already know the market is the market.
They saw some numbers in their Zillow app a couple years ago and can’t accept being a relatively minor percentage down from the highest highs. They’re either being scummy by scalping their own house or being overly emotional in the face of market reality. In either case they deserve the expense they incur on themselves by doing it.
They saw some numbers in their Zillow app a couple years ago and can’t accept being a relatively minor percentage down from the highest highs. They’re either being scummy by scalping their own house or being overly emotional in the face of market reality. In either case they deserve the expense they incur on themselves by doing it.
That is a misconception. The economy in many cases can be fueled by imports being greater than exports. A thriving economy needs to have confident consumers "consuming" at a good rate. Those consumers come largely from the middle classes and up, and they have the people who have discretionary funds.
What is true is that a major hindrance to a booming economy is an unrestrained flow of immigrants who arrive through extra-legal means and do not bring education or skill typically. That part of the economy drives down wages, and does not drive consumption. Also, it burdens the social welfare system.
Houses in my county Nassau county NY still no inventory selling at sticker price. Supply n demand no supply high demand
And if you were Robin Leech wealthy, you had a redwood deck on it.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
Decades of borrowing from Chinese peasants and the like, bringing about a "consuming" economy is complete and utter deception.
In the history of the world, no country has ever grown in wealth that imports more than it exports. Very simple, not rocket science. Consumer economy is giving everyone a credit card with a $100k USD limit, and not having to pay back that $100k USD. Boom the US economy overnight. But, two generations later that $100k USD with interest accruing from day one, will be $10 million USD, which was once only $100k USD. This is exactly how nations financially collapse.
The Chinese peasants have slowly been getting some of the interest owed them back. Although we have not paid the Chinese peasants a penny of their principle back, we have paid a fraction of the ever increasing interest owed them with US Farmland, world's largest pork producer Smithfield farms, and thousands of other prior US owned corporations.
So many factors at play here...
What you are saying might seem to make sense, but your assertion is essentially that if a country imports more than it exports, it cannot have a booming economy. That is not the case, and is not supported by economics or economists. Added to this is a discussion of debt, national debt, which contrary to what you might hear, is a completely different issue than the trade deficit. This conflation is common and is a problem. National debt, which is debt we incur to other institutions including Chinese ones, is no good and in the long term both drags the economy and adds to instability. Trade imbalance is different.
The history of the world is rife with examples of economies growing while importing more than they export, including the United States for the past five decades.
GON
$150 Site Donor 2025
If government borrows a trillion dollars from Chinese peasants and the like today, and no payment due for thirty years, and gives every man, woman, and child in Illinois two million dollars, Illinois will have a booming economy for a few years. Most everyone in Illinois will be consuming like crazy. If course, the savvy business people will convert their USD gains into farmland, gold, anything but holding the USD.
In thirty years, the Chinese peasants will want their one trillion dollars back, with accrued interest. THE US taxpayers will now be in the hook for 18 trillion dollars. All for a quick two to three years booming economy based on consumerism in Illinois.
Consumer economy is not ever a replacement for a nation needing to export more than it imports.
You are conflating national debt (national deficit) with the trade imbalance. Completely different things.
In doing so, you are, I think, saying that the national deficit, the debt to China is debt for things we have imported because of consumerism. The government has incurred debt to keep roads operational, education etc., and of course servicing the debt.
That is a big problem and should be addressed, but has very little to do with a trade imbalance.
Yep, these buyers taking their unsold homes off of the market all know what they got and ain't gonna give it away.
Is that what the experts say? If so, I’m pretty sure they have no clue what they’re talking about.
The government spends (and spends, and spends) on a gazillion things including a shocking amount on debt service. They spend money they don’t have and cover it by borrowing, or taxing. Not sure if that resolves your comment, but government spending is a fact regardless. This is completely separate from the international import/export trade deficit.
Sorry Gon, but this is simply not true. Trade deficits are neither inherently good nor bad.
The United States, and other countries, have experienced significant economic growth and increased wealth over extended periods while consistently running trade deficits.
Here's a key example:
A trade deficit my be balanced by a capital account surplus (investment flowing into the country). This foreign investment can fuel domestic growth, create jobs, and fund productive endeavors.
Additionally, imports can provide consumers and businesses with potentially lower-cost products, improving their quality of life and operations. Imports include crucial intermediate goods and capital equipment that enhance domestic production and efficiency. Growth depends on adequate material supply and no country makes everything, sufficient quantities etc.
Overall economic strength depends on many factors. A trade deficit can be a sign of a strong economy and, under certain conditions, can lead to stronger economic growth for the deficit-running country in the future.
Last edited:
Similar threads
