How can a cheap American buy a HOUSE in the 1st. World ?

mmmmmmmmm

If I were you, think back a few times.
An object of that type to be used by applying nothing more than a polished wooden base ... I would say an essence of mahogany with brass fittings.

It should be used absolutely without any changes to him, even if temporary.

Put in newspapers, pencils or cigarettes.

Better, make a niche in the wall and put it in, perhaps with a light bulb.
the bulb only if is in a niche.
It would not hurt a black chrome.

Adolf Loss would give me reason ...

 

OOps- edit to correct a spelling and lost the whole post-- anyhow yes Gian know what you mean--don't hide the painting with the gold leaf frame ---Geo.

 

They had no money down 100% mortgages in Thaialnd in the 90's. Thais would take one (any one) and not pay anything. By the time the bank had got its legal dept going and up to speed they gave the house back.

They had just had 1 years free rent.

I met a real American 2 nights ago. He walked into the bar and introduced himself to us 3 old Brits, we were polite even thought we dont do that but --hes American . He rattled on about how he had lived on KO Lipe for 10 years and has his own company etc etc . Ko lipe (google it) is a basically deserted island with some bungalows on it during tourist season.

My mate foolishly asked how could he own his own company in Thailand which raised my eyebrows too .The american scouled at him and said 'do you know American law?'

What the hell has American law got to do with anything or to do with Thailand,-- I don't know, but Ive only been here 23 years. He said it was because America helped Thailand during the war and now American get special compensation,-- well thats the first time I heard that one,-- I have some American friends who would like to know this little bit of information). There was many countries involved in the war was'nt there? He then said he had to go to the airport to meet some friends from Lipe which is not big enough for a tennis court let alone an air field.

 

Not a whole lot different in what happened in the U.S. with this Freddy Mack ????? thing. Hundreds of people just walked away from their morgages. My sister in Florida bought a morgage vacated house for $85,000 that was listed for over $300,000 just one year previous. Sad-Sad-Sad, she felt so guilty but like i told her someone will buy it --might as well be you--plus it's a home that needs a family otherwise it's just another wooden and brick box that will rot or get eaten away by termites.

 

In that one town maybe.

In 2011 there was almost 2 million foreclosure notices sent out....and that was the lowest year since 2007.

 

Yup so sad--those were familys with all their family dreams --fkn --greedy buisnessmen. They have the compassion of a pile of cow pattie.

Movie time, cheers -- Geo.

 

In 2005 near the height of the bubble in the US, 30% of all homes were purchased as investment properties.
There was plenty of 'greed' to go around.

 

That's one view. Mine is that they gambled on the property market and lost.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, someone borrows money to buy a house that they can't afford, they can't make the repayments, and it's the fault of the businessman? How so, for making the loan in the first place?

Plenty of people were betting on the market going up further and getting out before the crash. Like every other bubble, sooner or later it bursts and those who didn't bail get left with the consequences. So sad, too bad.

I'd like to see a property price crash here in Australia but then I bought mine to live in, it's paid for and I really don't care if it's worth $1 or $1M or more.

PDW

 

WHAT? you still build houses from wood, I saw them do it on cowboy movies.

 

Houses and boats. Hard to match the look and feel of wood.

 

Recall now --who set the whole process in motion and fed it well knowing by doing so it would implode-- Do you honestly think this was an accident of accounting--Boys follow the money trail --who gained -who lost. Overall financial institutions did not lose, as a matter of fact they gained by eliminating or absorbing competition plus a nice boost from tax payers money to boot. The whole process was just a game of smoking mirrors as the taxpayers contributions cushioned any loss for the survivors and they get to supply the financing on the same homes for a second time with more financially secured customers. Some day some smart investigative reporter with a financial background will lay the whole mess out for what it really was-- A slight readjustment for the big boys.

Good night off to the bunk--Geo.

 

Call me a cynic, but I don't believe the 'big boys' are really smart enough for all that sneaky premeditation and cooperation. I think they just stumbled around and slipped in their own mess, and then some of them figured out how to turn it to their advantage.

Occasionally things happen just because they happened, for non-conspiratorial reasons....

 

This was a global phenomenon and yes I do follow the money, there was lots of it.

70 trillion dollars was involved. This is greater than the combined GDP of the nations who were subjected to the asset bubbles. This huge amount does not include the ancillary effect to the broader economy that construction, consumer spending and wealth effect caused.

Times were a booming and oddly no one was worried one bit. Well there was some fear- remember it?
Housing was going to run out. Houses would be too expensive- if I don't buy this year I would be able to afford it next, if I don't buy now I will miss out on all this easy money...

No one was afraid of the one thing which was a certainty: the price was going to drop out of the market and it would drag the economy down with it.

Well some were- take a look at the brit economist Harrison, he was writing in the Economist in 1998 & called the bubble and collapse including its effect on the economy to the year.
I think he gave the collapse and bottom five years- so 2008... counting on fingers... got it- we have a year to go..



"Fred Harrison (born 1944) is a British author, economic commentator and corporate policy advisor, notable for his stances on land reform and belief that an over reliance on land, property and mortgage weakens economic structures[1] and makes companies vulnerable to economic collapse. He is acknowledged as having predicted the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, laying it out in his books as early as 1997.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Harrison_(author)

Take a look at this Wikipedia entry on Harrison:

"Harrison has been very active in the UK media,[1][5][8] with dozens of newspaper and magazine articles, and many TV and radio interviews. Since 2005, several commentators have agreed that his predictions have consistently proved correct.[8] As an example, in 2005 there was an almost unanimous view that the rise in house prices would moderate and that any talk of a "housing bubble" was both premature and indicated a false understanding of debt economics.[5] Harrison warned that there would be a two-year explosive growth in prices and property speculation before the market imploded in the winter of 2007/08 with heavy damage to the financial markets. As shown by the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, he was essentially correct on all points. His prediction that the problems with debt economics and scaling would contribute to a worldwide economic collapse in 2010 has not, as of mid-2009, been fully borne out, but there has been a major recession as a result of the mortgage crisis.[5]

Someone needs to update the page eh?

Or perhaps we avoided the "collapse" by all those 'unnecessary' bail outs of the financial institutions...

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine I suppose.
The principle driver for the economic downturn happened on "main street" not 'wall street', the government bailed out those things which were critical to our economy in a effort to limit damage.
In doing so programs such as TARP served their function well and have already returned real profits to the government coffers.

Secondary efforts towards job creation are also something the government is in a unique position to offer during downturns.
Private capital is gun shy and sits on their hands so someone has to provide stimulus. Last I heard, the jobs programs are doing what they are supposed to do.
It's expensive sure but historically such expenditures return to the government more than the initial cost of such programs.

 

Troy I agree i think you've hit the nail on the head however in the beginning when a few wise greedy men started bundling these fragile morgages and selling them off as good investment packages they had to know it was disaster waiting to happen. My point they knew--- they planned their survival---they walked away from the charred remains with huge bankrupsy profits and most likely re invested in the stronger surviving companies. Money breeds money regardless of how you get it in the first place.
Bntii- while i do have some university accounting I use the KISS principle when looking at the overall economics of scale in the form of a pyramid of marbles. The height of which represents wealth. The problem is the higher the pyramid with a given population(given number of marbles) the less numbers with any comforth wealth in the middle and lower class. It simply means there are more millionaires and billionaires at the top. There is less funds in numbers to cushion an economic blow, which seems to be what has occured in present time. People with wealth do not feel such impacts as they have more money than they can spend anyhow. They don't belong to any country they belong to a world elite.(that old sayin again "a merchant knows no borders).