We've already covered this. You are like a broken record for failed arguments.
Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land. When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings. Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.
Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.
Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.
“I don’t mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. It’s debating stupid people that’s hard.”
In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.
Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?
Well see, I can actually think for myself. I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion.
Commercial real estate, is directly connected to residential real estate.
Both occupy the same underlining resource, called "land".
If one of those two, starts taking larger and larger shares of the "land", then logically the other must be reduced relative to the first.
Further, it is also very logical that the bubble in the commercial real estate would be delayed behind that of the residential bubble, because of something know as "zoning law". The process to have a commercial zoned land, rezoned for residential, takes years. Beyond that, the zoning process of new land, also takes years.
Thus the move away from commercial property, towards residential, would have a delayed action of lowering supply and increasing value, over a period of years. Much like exactly what we see in the data.
Lastly, it isn't surprising to me that lending standards were lowered across the board. Remember, before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were considered risky, and where a niche market.
Fannie and Freddie convinced the entire industry, that these loans were safe, because they were willing to securitize them.
If they were safe for residential, why not commercial? It's the same thing, a mortgage on a property that has increasing value.
Again, you just don't seem to know enough about this topic, to discuss it intelligently. Why else to you routinely rely on someone else who wrote their opinion that you agree with? All you do is post other people's opinion.
"The
existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
That bold right there, is the fact. There was a parallel commercial real estate bubble.
"The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble
presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"
That bold there, is opinion. It is that authors opinion, that it presents a strong challenge to the explanation.
You posted this as if it was a fact. It is not a fact. That is an opinion.
You should know this. The fact you don't seem to, is why I have that Thomas Sowell quote in my sig.
