Maybe no housing rebound for a generation: Shiller
The Housing market is likely to remain weak and may take a generation or more to rebound, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller told Reuters Insider on Tuesday.
Shiller, the co-creator of the Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index, said a weak labor market, high gas prices and a general sense of unease among consumers was outweighing low mortgage rates and would likely keep a lid on prices for the foreseeable future.
Let it be known, that I have no use for the queer Mr. Franks, I hope I have made that abundantly clear in the past, and of course one should give a warning that PBS, certainly at times, has shown a liberal slant on things. I would suggest people should take a look at the comments on what I believe is a conservative site, that usually doesn't go too far off the deep end? Bush's 2001 Warning of Financial Crisis.
The problems started with the high-flying investment industry whose regulators were chums with them. The New York Times had an interesting commentary,
Mark Landler and Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote: These experts, from both political parties, say Bush's early personnel choices and overarching antipathy toward regulation created a climate that, if it did not trigger the turmoil, almost certainly aggravated it. The president's first two Treasury secretaries, for instance, lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise...
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- I'm surprised that the Secretary of the Treasury and even Bumbling Bush, did not act like idiotlogues during the meltdown. Perhaps Bush Jr., knew that a depression would kill oil consumption and that would help the family and friends business? I just wonder why he did behave rationally? ---
In our finger-wagging, we should always allow for history, Jim, w/o revisionism.
Bush began warning of potential problems w/ Fannie and Freddie as far back as 2001. In 2003 Treasury Secretary Snow called for regulations and supervison of GSE's. Barney Frank said there was no crisis. In 2006 McCain supported the FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT. All the Democrats of the Senate Banking Committee voted against it. July 14.2008, Frank says Freddie and Fannie are "fundamentally sound." Says "They're in the housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid." Dumb or what?
January 2009 Frank says he expects the Treasury to “use Fannie and Freddie” more to bolster home lending.
August 18 2010, Frank sees his error amidst the banking crisis he helped cause, says of Freddie and Fannie, "They should be abolished." The first good idea he's had in years. He should have listened to Bush.
S.F. John, yes, a very good documentary, PBS -- Inside the Meltdown, you can see both parts of it on the Internet, I looked at the first part earlier today.
I'm surprised that the Secretary of the Treasury and even Bumbling Bush, did not act like idiotlogues during the meltdown. Perhaps Bush Jr., knew that a depression would kill oil consumption and that would help the family and friends business? I just wonder why he did behave rationally? It was certainly uncharacteristic of him, except for protecting the oil business, and I almost have to assume that is what he was doing here.
I saw the first part of this on TV last week. Even though it's PBS I still want to see the second part just to get more info in this whole event.
Jim Lincoln wrote: In some parts of the country there wasn't that much fall in prices, and in some areas such as California property prices are beginning to rebound.
Jim's right in that some of the older, more established and strategically-located neighborhoods in CA are "rebounding" but most are still no where near returning to their original high value before the bubble burst.
Outlying areas and areas like mine where many of the homes are/were so-called "investment homes" saw many of them sold-off short, which really clobbered the value of our house, just being NEXT to these that were dumped by their owners.
Last part of Mike's post explains the ultimate source of this current problem: Market distortion via government intervention, causing market "correction", which in turn tempts even more government intervention. What a vicious cycle, and what a mess!
Jim Lincoln wrote: In some parts of the country there wasn't that much fall in prices, and in some areas such as California property prices are beginning to rebound. So, gloom and doom types find an easy way to make a buck or get attention by their prophecies. For a little more factual look at the causes, see, PBS -- Inside the Meltdown
Then again we should pay attention to the fact that PBS is government TV. So we shouldn't expect self criticism in PBS broadcasting.
e.g. Jim's "factual look at the causes" says this:
"Within months, however, Paulson would witness the virtual collapse of the giant mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and preside over their takeover by the federal government."
You might get the idea that they are private, right? But they are GSEs, government sponsored enterprises. Both were created by the government. It wasn't much work to do a "takeover."
It is government interventionism via these GSEs/govt guaranteed loans in the markets in the first place that enabled even bad loans to be made.(The everyone should have their own home whether they can afford it or not syndrome.) Don't expect PBS to broadcast this.
In some parts of the country there wasn't that much fall in prices, and in some areas such as California property prices are beginning to rebound. So, gloom and doom types find an easy way to make a buck or get attention by their prophecies.
Scott McMahan wrote: The current situation is bad for some people, but it's also a great time for a young person to buy affordable houses at historically low interest rates.
True, even though credit is tighter for some now than it was then.
It's funny (sad, actually) but I remember hoping that something like this would happen back in the early 1980s when I wanted a house but couldn't even begin to be able to afford one. I FINALLY get enough money to enter the "lucrative" CA real estate market back in 2004 only to get burned by having the financial "ground" melt under me after 2008.
Proverbs 23:5 immediately came to mind once I realized what was happening.
At least my dad was able to get a 700% profit on his house which he sold just prior to the bursting of the dot com bubble in 2000.
What does this article mean by a "rebound"? Kind of vague.
House prices were artificially high for a decade or so, and the bubble popped. Do they mean a return to the bubble?
The current situation is bad for some people, but it's also a great time for a young person to buy affordable houses at historically low interest rates.
1
There are a total of 10 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
The New York Times had an interesting commentary,
