Maggie's Farm

The Trulia study of how cheap home ownership is can be misleading. It assumes people have a down payment, among many other things.

The capital needed, upfront, to buy a home is not easy to pull together. Without a decent interest rate to encourage savings, people take longer to accumulate the funds required, as current interest rates benefit spenders over savers.

Thus, immediate rather than deferred gratification is rewarded, meaning renters will continue to grow since home ownership, regardless of benefits, will be viewed as a net 'bad'. You can't lose value on an apartment you rent, after all.

It's a perverse mindset, but it's real. Assuming this 'recovery' in housing is real is incorrect. It could be, but it will take some major shifts in attitude, interest rates, and housing prices. People simply don't see a huge value in owning a home which can decline in value (even though most capital loss has already occurred).

The assumption of recovery is based on purchasers buying lower-end or 'average' price homes. But the idea of a starter home, once very popular, is no longer the ideal. Starter homes are plentiful, but not as desirable to new buyers. So they need to save ever more to get the home they really want, and take longer to shift their values toward a starter home.


In the comments section, someone correctly noted this is actually the perfect time to buy a rental property as an income investment. I agree. The benefits will last longer, and there is more value in this approach.

Homeownership as a net 'good' will take years to recover - and the housing 'recovery' will take the same amount of time to truly take place.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22366

Just to show how many people no longer can afford (or choose) to save for a downpayment....

Attributing what to me? You've clearly gone completely off your rocker.

Did I write that, or has your trolling become completely irrational?

By the way, how is that comment's (Anon-y-mous) view any different from the VERY common Democratic view of a black Republican?
Here in New York, whenever the concept is mentioned in a discussion, the line "a traitor to their race" is used.

Is that a bad view, is it educated? But if I've heard it once, I've heard it a million times. Nobody in the Democratic Party questions it.

Interestingly, I have several black friends who are Republican. Their view? Blacks who vote Democrat do so because they have been culturally 'taught' to because the vast majority of public works seem to be provided by Democrats - and they seem to 'care more'. Which is, of course, idiotic in the extreme.

They don't believe it's racism, they just feel the Democrats do a better job of letting minorities know 'the check is in the mail'. They do.

That's a fair commentary.

But given the views of my non-white Republican friends, I'd have to say there is a very thick element of racism (or a least a healthy dose of cynicism toward voters) in the Democratic perspective and approach to race.

I'm sure you'd disagree. But it's hard to miss.

I agree, but the level of 'scaling up' varies.

There is a firm which produces wind generators with rotors which spin around the pole, rather than as propellers, the more common variety.

I looked into their pricing, and if I had the space on my street to put their largest version up, it could provide enough power for 8 homes and reduce (roughly) 60-70% of our electrical needs. The cost would be paid off in a reasonable time frame.

Downsides? No upfront capital, eyesore, noise, and lack of space.

I agree wind farms will most likely never create enough energy to produce much power at all. There's always a chance, but it's a long shot, at best.

I wish there were reasonable cost alternatives which could be easily slotted in to existing homes, but they really don't exist. The everyday cost of paying for current energy provision versus saving for the upfront costs of alternatives make it prohibitive (in some ways, it's similar to my comment on home ownership, above).

That's a vast oversimplification.

They were still offended in a massive way prior to 'new media'. Remember Salman Rushdie? How about Theo Van Gogh?

It's not going to end. They are offended because they are told to be offended, and such a large number are undereducated enough to not know better. We have people like this here in the US, and new media hasn't changed their behavior. In fact, the Muslim world's behavior hasn't changed at all - we just hear about it more, and their activities have become more violent.

Let's see. 1200 years on, and Islamic views of the common people are still about fighting war and eliminating opposition. You'll say it's not the common view, but history would say you're incorrect. The people have public leaders who utilize, quite effectively, the religion to pursue their agendas.

Pervasive access isn't new at all, that's just what you choose to believe. While 100 years ago the Arab world could effectively isolate themselves, they have not been able to since WWII, and probably even WWI.

It's nothing new. It's a cultural attitude. People don't tire of violence. If they did, the world would no longer be violent. While there are pockets of reduced violence, mainly in industrialized nations, there is still pervasive violence but it has different sources and outlets.

The only way the Arab world can overcome these attitudes is to grow economically, but many of their governments are not geared toward growth, and rather seek income accumulation for those in power. This MIGHT change, but I doubt it anytime soon.

Either way, it still makes your view an oversimplification and I'm certain 1200 years of history support my outlook rather than yours.

There are some reformers and moderates among the Islamic world. They are generally marginalized whenever possible by those using the religion for their own purposes - and if you don't believe that, just take a look at some of the wackier fundamentalist groups here in the US. Then simply take that template and drop it on a larger population. Even the 'new media' or access to it, is used to keep the people in line. Access alone is meaningless.

I have access to video games, and occasionally play Madden NFL (pretty well, too) with my son. Doesn't make me a 'gamer'. Access doesn't change anything - it's how the access is managed. Given the nature and background of those managing it, the future is not hopeful for them at this point.

Hell, we're still being managed in a country with plenty of access. People still think the embassy was a spontaneous event (Ambassador Rice said so yesterday!). HA! Large scale technical weapons? Warnings of an attack on the embassy? The safe house attacked in a coordinated fashion? Something smells really ugly about the PR in this particular case - and we're a nation with more access to information than most.

I never said war was unique to the Islamic world. The nature of their approach to engaging foes has been for the last 300, at least.

More and more in "recent" times? OK - vague, hardly useful commentary. I could say it's more pervasive today than it was yesterday, and I'd be correct. Doesn't make it a meaningful point. Other nations have been infiltrated by Western culture without negative side effects of this kind. So...what's the point, exactly?

That final point actually undermines your original point relating to access - though you've simply changed your approach to your original point, so that's nothing new.

You originally said access to information and pervasiveness of Western culture was the cause. Now it's accuracy and completeness? I'm confused what it is you're trying to say.

If the point is accuracy and completeness, then my point of education and economics is correct. By being comfortable in your means and knowing how to decipher information, then you can make logic work for you.

Where the information comes from matters little, nor does the amount or the access.