« Comments Note | Main | Duopoly crumbling... »


February 27, 2006

Today's Housing Bubble Post

-- by Dave Johnson

It's here.

Number of unsold homes hits record high,

The backlog of unsold new homes reached a record level last month, as sales slipped despite the warmest January in more than 100 years.

The Commerce Department reported Monday that sales of new single-family homes dropped by 5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.233 million units last month.

That was the slowest pace since January 2005 and left the number of unsold homes at a record high of 528,000.

Posted by Dave Johnson at February 27, 2006 6:49 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1648


Comments

So does this mean it's a buyer's market now? So, why do I get the feeling that all you liberals are going to spin this as bad news. I thought you were for the "little guys". I guess that only holds true when they're union little guys, not average American homebuyer little guys.

Of course it's not good or bad news. It's not news at all. Markets rise and markets fall. But no occurance, no matter how normal, is above being spun by the idealogically blind. Think about this guys. You're trying to make the normal ebb and flow of a multi-billion dollar market into a campaign issue. Don't you have any real issues to discuss?

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 27, 2006 7:04 PM

I always think of you when I hear the housing news.

Here is a little speculative food for thought:

http://pureland.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-sure-hope-theyre-wrong-but-just-in.html

Posted by: grannyinsanity [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 1:50 AM

If nobody but people who already have two houses can afford a house, then nobody buys one. Supply and demand at work.

Posted by: janinsanfran [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 8:20 AM

Granny,

The articles you link here are always interesting. I particularly liked the part where the LEAP/E2020 raises the probability of a major crisis to start up to 100% if there is military intervention in Iran. Of course, 100% probability = certainty. One could define military intervention as a "major crisis". So, the LEAP folks aren't going too far out on any limbs here. I think alot of people who gained their freedom with the fall of Communism would disagree with portraying that event as a "significant political crisis". It was only a crisis for the dying evil empire. No suprise here that the authors view history from the perspective of the oppressive government, and fail to have any empaty at all for the people who suffered under that regime.

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 8:26 AM

Happy,

Regarding US attack on Iran. I think that Iran is the real threat and that Bush cried wolf with Iraq. Iraq was a SECULAR country and did NOT have WMD. Iran is a far-right Islamic theocracy that DOES have WMD.

Here we are with a REAL threat and the President does not have the credibility to say so, and has depleted the military resources to deal with it.

On top of that, the Iraq blunder has greatly strengthed the position of Iran. We have elevated a Shite majority into power in Iran and they have already formed an aliance treaty with Iran.

On top of that, the Shiites have informed the US that ANY attack on Iran, from the US or ANY OTHER COUNTRY will result in a Shiite uprising against American troops in Iraq.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 9:01 AM

Of course it's not good or bad news. It's not news at all. Markets rise and markets fall. But no occurance, no matter how normal, is above being spun by the idealogically blind. Think about this guys. You're trying to make the normal ebb and flow of a multi-billion dollar market into a campaign issue. Don't you have any real issues to discuss?

That is, the housing bubble scares right-wingers shitless.

Posted by: richard [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 9:07 AM

Dave,

You're able to question the Iraq invasion now, because Bush took action before Saddam was able to distribute his WMD to terrorists willing to deliver them to US. The real concern is where are those WMD now? Invading Iraq was right because Saddam had billions of dollars at his disposal, and wanted to inflict harm on the US. A combination we couldn't allow.

As for invading Iran, it seems like you are proposing that it would be a good idea. Your reasoning seems to be because they will have WMD, and they support terrorism.

I believe the same was true of Iran. So it seems we agree on reasons to take preemptive action. But you want to exclude Iran based on your hindsight, and I guess your "feeling" prior to the ivasion that Saddam didn't have WMD, and wasn't a far right theocracy. Frankly, I find the distinction to be too fine to bet 100,000 + innocent lives on, which could be the death toll in major cities attacked by biological or nuclear weapons.

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 3:14 PM

Richard,

I'm a right winger, and I'm not scared. Why do you believe others are?

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 3:16 PM

janinsanfran,

how can you have such a gloomy view of the housing market after 3 straight years of increasing prices, and homeownership at the highest level in history?

i've never heard or read anything about people with 2 homes being the only ones able to buy one more. it seems counter intuitive. what point are you trying to make?

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 3:20 PM

Happy -

Regarding Iraq's supposed WMDs, don't forget that Clinton bombed the shit out of Saddam's WMD capabilities when they messed with the UN inspectors. Iraq never even tried to rebuild their capacity.

Since the invasion, not even ONE person has been located who worked in any capacity in WMD development after Clinton's bombing campaign. Not even a janitor who says he worked in a facility working on WMD. Not one scientist, not one technician.

I'm not proposing that invading Iran qould be a good idea, I am proposing that bombing Iran's nuclear weapons facilities might be necessary - excepot Bush has us in a situation in Iraq where our forces would be endangered as Shites retaliate.

There is EVIDENCE that Iran is developing a nuclear capacity. There was NO EVIDENCE that Iraq was, after Clinton took action. AND we were already tied up in the effort to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11 - another thing Iraq had nothing to do with.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 4:02 PM

Dave, there was evidence of Saddam's WMD, and there is evidence now. But for the sake of argument, lets say there wasn't and isn't. The combination of billions of dollars, and unbridled hatred for US, and a penchant for mass murder is still too volatile a mixture to ignore. Bush's bold move to protect the citizens of this country is precisly why Republicans are far more trusted than Democrats with National Security.

You may disagree with Bush, but the end result as measured in votes speaks for itself.

I mean really, some day, at some time, somewhere, on some issue, you must be able to see
that the reason voters continue to reject liberalism is because you are actually wrong. Mistaken. Incorrect. Not right. It really is why the Democrat Party keeps being rejected.

Why not adopt this issue as your first step toward the mainstream of American voters?

Posted by: HappyOD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 28, 2006 5:31 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page