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: Elroy Jetson who wrote (99165)	1/6/2008 5:11:31 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Well, don't know where to start with your views. I'm pretty sure that property in Irvine CA is much more expensive than property in eastern Oregon due to population issues, not credit or tax issues, since those are approximately equal. When you want to attribute cause and effect it pays to hold other variables equal, and see what the results are. When you do that you will see that your two main claims are nonsense as well. As population increases, so will GDP holding other variables equal (productivity, education, etc). If you compare two populations with the same GDP, the one with higher population density will spend a larger fraction of their income on housing. You are focused on only certain aspects of what happened in the USA in the 20'th century, and are neglecting what the population has done during that century, and what has happened to available land. If we were constantly expanding into new land without any people in it, you would see real estate stuck at the cost of house construction. Most places of the USA are nowhere near that condition anymore. The places that do still have lots of land tend to lack water. Anyway, to claim that real estate prices are independent of population borders on lunacy. I'd rank it worse than the gold standard for modern monetary systems.