Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Vosilla who wrote (37629)	8/11/2005 1:57:29 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Okay so you dismiss more people needing food, clothing and shelter, spending money, the multiplier effect and job creation/business formation as trivial in the whole scheme of the credit/coastal housing bubble. Are you purposely trying to get me irritated? Where the F did I say I dismissed people needing food clothes etc etc etc. Where? OK people need food. OK people need clothes. OK people need a place to live. So what? When they are out of a job they buy less clothes, cheaper food, and stop buying houses. Just because I need a car and there are more people needing cars did that cause the price of cars to go up? Why did we have a great deperession if the need for food, the need for clothes, and the need for a place to live was all that mattered? You keep bring insinuating that this "need" is an all powerful force of some kind that can prevent an economic cycle from taking place. Take a step back and think about what you are saying. It is preposterous IMO. At some point there is NO ability for the masses to take on more debt. That point comes when housing crashes regardless of what people need. In fact, I think you will find that people "need" a lot lot less than they have been "needing" for quite some time. You also fail once again to address the issue of overcapacity in your "needs scenario". There is mammoth oversupply of damn near everything. As for the multiplier affect we are going to see it in reverse. For Christs sake 30% of the houses purchased on 2004 were for investment purposes or second homes not to live in. Now you tell me what "need" there is for that nonsense. We have more than enough houses once the "need" for second homes goes away. This argument is now getting more than silly. If there was ANY merit to your idea, the US would never have gone into a recession. You are attempting to tell me that something can not happen because of immigration an population growth, when it has happened over and over and over and over and over. Then again, I suppose it is different this time. Mish