Could you show some source to back your assertion? Or, is this a baseless opinion of yours?
AP- new home sales worst on record
- Thread starter whitehall
- Start date
Could you show some source to back your assertion? Or, is this a baseless opinion of yours?
Do new homes pay for themselves? If not is this a great way to keep people working?
With increased numbers of residential you have increased demand on services, and historically the funding of revenues generated by residential housing does not pay for the services, they require from a municipality.
Essentially what we have is an industry that increases taxes by way of housing projects.
If all that buy homes work within the community then perhaps new housing will pay for itself. Building more homes than the market will bear then becomes a tax increase.
With increased numbers of residential you have increased demand on services, and historically the funding of revenues generated by residential housing does not pay for the services, they require from a municipality.
Essentially what we have is an industry that increases taxes by way of housing projects.
If all that buy homes work within the community then perhaps new housing will pay for itself. Building more homes than the market will bear then becomes a tax increase.
Banking on Bankruptcy
Thoughts on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Commodity Spikes, and the "New Stagflation"
By Larry Peterson
This is a web-only article from the website of Dollars & Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice available at Banking on Bankruptcy | Dollars & Sense
After the stabilization provoked by the government-supported rescue of one of the financial sector's main players, Bear Stearns, in March, the economic focus of most people, including policy makers, immediately turned to the remarkable rise in prices that had been spreading through a worrying extent of the economy for somewhat longer.
This trend had been led, of course, by surges in prices of key inputs such as oil and agricultural commodities (and also by gold: though of relatively little industrial use, it retains its traditional popularity as a hedge against inflation—or at least it did until very recently—for many investors). But, despite the clear upward trend, some of these commodities, especially oil, were subject on several occasions during this particular period to huge and rapid—sometimes unprecedentedly so—swings in both directions.
And then there was the dollar, which was engaged in a similarly bumpy ride, mainly downwards. But on Friday, July the 11th, the stock of the two major government-sponsored mortgage companies (or Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fell by more than 50% in the opening minutes of trading in New York; and the focus shifted right back to the specific woes of the financial sector in a twinkling of an eye.
This was ironic in a sense, for it was exactly a year before that interest rate rises, justified at the time by stubbornly increasing prices—especially again, that of oil, but also by rising wages and falling unit labor costs (which corresponds to labor productivity)—precipitated the financial catastrophe that has come to be known as the "subprime crisis."
(A quick aside here: just in May, Challenge published the results of a shocking study by Andrew Sum and Paolo Tobar, which indicates that "$32-$37 billion in major Wall Street firms' bonuses in 2006 and 2007 were greater than the annual increases in the wages of 109 million American front-line workers between 2002 and 2007."
This suggests that of the feared earnings inflation the Fed is so zealous to combat, the lion's share between 2005-2007 consisted of outsized payouts to movers and shakers on Wall Street— ..... con't
Banking on Bankruptcy | Dollars & Sense
Thoughts on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Commodity Spikes, and the "New Stagflation"
By Larry Peterson
This is a web-only article from the website of Dollars & Sense: The Magazine of Economic Justice available at Banking on Bankruptcy | Dollars & Sense
After the stabilization provoked by the government-supported rescue of one of the financial sector's main players, Bear Stearns, in March, the economic focus of most people, including policy makers, immediately turned to the remarkable rise in prices that had been spreading through a worrying extent of the economy for somewhat longer.
This trend had been led, of course, by surges in prices of key inputs such as oil and agricultural commodities (and also by gold: though of relatively little industrial use, it retains its traditional popularity as a hedge against inflation—or at least it did until very recently—for many investors). But, despite the clear upward trend, some of these commodities, especially oil, were subject on several occasions during this particular period to huge and rapid—sometimes unprecedentedly so—swings in both directions.
And then there was the dollar, which was engaged in a similarly bumpy ride, mainly downwards. But on Friday, July the 11th, the stock of the two major government-sponsored mortgage companies (or Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fell by more than 50% in the opening minutes of trading in New York; and the focus shifted right back to the specific woes of the financial sector in a twinkling of an eye.
This was ironic in a sense, for it was exactly a year before that interest rate rises, justified at the time by stubbornly increasing prices—especially again, that of oil, but also by rising wages and falling unit labor costs (which corresponds to labor productivity)—precipitated the financial catastrophe that has come to be known as the "subprime crisis."
(A quick aside here: just in May, Challenge published the results of a shocking study by Andrew Sum and Paolo Tobar, which indicates that "$32-$37 billion in major Wall Street firms' bonuses in 2006 and 2007 were greater than the annual increases in the wages of 109 million American front-line workers between 2002 and 2007."
This suggests that of the feared earnings inflation the Fed is so zealous to combat, the lion's share between 2005-2007 consisted of outsized payouts to movers and shakers on Wall Street— ..... con't
Banking on Bankruptcy | Dollars & Sense
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,543
- 2,165
- Banned
- #44
Meister, you cannot find all the evidence you want that the Bush admin from 2001 to 2006 did nothing to stop the recklessness. In other words, there is no evidence that the Bush administration acted correctly about stopping the madness.
Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
New home sales are tricky.
Lets say we have 300 million people, 3 to a home. We need 100 million homes.
Each year 1 million homes fall apart due to age/lack of maintenance.
Each year we get 3 million more people and thus need another million new homes.
So......that means we need 2 million new homes a year.
Go through a decade where folks are buying 10 million new homes a year because lending officers are paid on commission for loans written not money collected and all of a sudden you have a ridiculous number of new homes.
My 1950's era home just isn't falling apart that rapidly and we aren't reproducing or importing Hispanics fast enough for there to be a need for as many new subdivisions as we built with 2,000 square foot houses.
Thank you for your time.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,996
- 280
Awww, and he was so gleeful about bad news.
Grandma
Geezer Chick
- Moderator
- #47
New homes aren't always built to order.
In the past it was common for a developer to build several homes in a development, or even complete blocks of condos, expecting them to sell to the local market: retirees, yuppies, young marrieds, growing families, people moving to a job boom area, and so on.
The developers took a massive hit when the market tanked, and those that remain are a little more careful about speculative action.
Just saying.
In the past it was common for a developer to build several homes in a development, or even complete blocks of condos, expecting them to sell to the local market: retirees, yuppies, young marrieds, growing families, people moving to a job boom area, and so on.
The developers took a massive hit when the market tanked, and those that remain are a little more careful about speculative action.
Just saying.
Toronado3800
Gold Member
- Nov 15, 2009
- 7,608
- 560
- 140
Grandma, would you think it is correct to say they are building only two or three extra homes at a time now where a few years back they just built whole neighborhoods at a time and assumed if it was built more people would appear to buy them?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
It looks like you don't know the difference
Existing home sale the bankers get the money
New home sale construction workers get some of the money that is the difference
NEXT.
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #51
the banks own EVERY exsisting house sold in this country?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
New home sales representing a good health economy
existing homes sales represent's a rich and healthy bank,
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #53
So no American regular Joes own homes anymore?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #54
How Many Homeowners are There in the USA | Bloglines Answers
According to the US Census bureau, there are over 75 million homeowners in the United States
According to the US Census bureau, there are over 75 million homeowners in the United States
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Do construction workers get money from existing home sales or new home sales?
GWV5903
Gold Member
The #1 New Home market in the nation has very low inventory home levels on the ground...
Builders have to maintain low inventory to contract ratios, banks will not let them...
Try again...
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #57
Do Americans ever get money from selling their homes?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Here's how we do this I answer you question and before you ask a question you should answer the question asked of you.
You asked
That was not what my comment earlier was meant for you tried to side step what was said. So I asked to better clarify what I meant.
And your answer too this question is?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #59
So gleeful he lied and lied and lied about the info given him
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #60
You claimed that when exsisting homes sale only bankers get the money.
That was either a BIG mistake or a lie.
which one you want to make it?
Similar threads
