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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (266475)	12/29/2005 4:26:20 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574212

Ted could pull a "kerry", marry some rich woman. San Diego by the way, in spite of being a most attractive CA city didn't really start taking off until 1996 or so. Taro

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (266475)	12/29/2005 4:45:28 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574212

RE:"You are so off the mark...the housing market in several US regions was overheated long before Clinton's tax change." Yes and no. Places like, FL, Arizona and NV were very reasonable. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US population has been shifting from the NE and Midwest to sunnier climates now for the past 50 years, would it now? It wouldn't have to do with the fact that S.CA is experiencing a steady out-migration and guess who are the two biggest recipients of that out migration? It wouldn't have to do with the fact that the West is running out of water and both NV and AZ are dependent on the Colorado which is also a major source of water for S. CA, now would it? Whenever there are limits to growth placed on places where people want to live, housing prices go up very quickly. Now FLA's housing price growth is primarily centered on Miami and Fort Myers. Aside from the previously mentioned sun and longest coastline, Fort Meyer's and Miami's growth, strangely enough, is also caused by limits to their expansion. Miami is hemmed in by the Atlantic to the east and south and the Everglades and Lake Okeechebee to the north and west. Fort Meyer's is hemmed in by the Gulf to the east, by the Everglades and Lake Okeechebee to the south and east. It can only expand north. Coincidently, the greatest increase in prices has been Miami followed by Fort Meyers. In fact, that's why you're thinking of moving to Tampa where its less crowded and more affordable. But Jimbo, you best get used to those higher prices because FLA too has a water problem and the close-in, buildable sites are filling up rapidly. You can't experience 30-40% population growth every ten years and expect it will be the same like it was when you were growing up. Unfortunately, other people like FLA for the same reasons you do.

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (266475)	12/29/2005 5:04:25 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574212

Yes and no. Places like, FL, Arizona and NV were very reasonable. Then the Clinton free $500k onslaught began. Once it got going, Greenspan foolishly fueled it. Prices went through the roof and even in already expensive places like NYC and California, they doubled and tripled. Because of it, Young people like Ted don't have much chance of future appreciation if they can afford a first home at all... You are speculating at best. I lived in Fla for 18 years, and the market stagnated there for as long as I was there. Then the baby boomers started buying retirement homes, and the race was on. Note that you have pointed to three states notorious for attracting retirees. Give it a rest...there are REAL problems in the country. Al