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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ild who wrote (44650)	1/17/2006 9:59:28 PM
From: TimbaBear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

ild Another big difference between RE and hard commodities is that it's easy to build new RE. I'm not following you here. Easier in what sense? It's not easier to build houses than it is to own commodities. If you are taking it back to the mining aspects, a lot of what goes into houses has to first be extracted from the earth as well. So I'm not tracking what you mean, could you rephrase it for me? Don't you think that the builders will continue to build more and more houses until supply and demand (real, not speculative) will reach a balance? For real demand, I think we are already overbuilt, but that is not to say we can't get more so. More general question: do houses have to be expensive? Compared to what? If you have no means to buy one or pay for it if you had one, no matter what price is put on it, it will be too expensive. If you have all the money you could ever dream of and then some, perhaps no price is too expensive. If people don't want your money, then all houses are too expensive. If you have a lot of what everyone else craves, you have your pick of homes. "It all depends" is the best answer I can offer. Timba