This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
CNBC Video | Let’s Bulldoze The Foreclosed Homes Because the “Fixtures, the WIFI, or Whatever, Even the Color is Not Going to be Stylish By the Time Someone Buys Them”
Should Gov't Pay to Reduce Housing Supply?
The
shadow inventory of homes in the United States currently stands at 1.8
million units. That's a nine-month supply. Add to that the current
8.6-month supply of existing homes on the market and you can bet home
prices will decline further. Some say destroying the homes to get rid of
the excess supply is the only way out of this mess. But who pays?
Should the government pay to bulldoze abandoned, foreclosed homes to shed excess housing supply?
Share your opinion at the CNBC poll here...
They'd rather throw people in the streets and bulldoze the homes than work out a solution...
Ever think that they might not have clear title to these homes and the only option is to bulldoze?
And the fraudclosures continue...
www.4closureFraud.org
»
- advertisements -
I didn't know that Erin was a member of the CFR until a few years ago. And for her to make the comment that the houses would be out of style is a joke. Bulldozing houses, Rick Santelli actually went as far as he could go without saying what he really wanted to say. And as you commented, if their is a supply glut then the prices have to be in line with a supply glut. Which means the houses have to come down in prices big time. Nobody wanted to touch that subject (and Erin and the one guest and Santelli knew it), because in business that is what happens all day long. But if they do that then the banks have to eat the loss and it would hurt them even more. So they artificially (at least santelli went that far) keep the housing prices and market high by not selling those houses at the prices that the market/people will buy them for, but bulldozing them and keeping the game going.
Here's something they need to think about, who's going to buy houses at these artificial prices. Because with unemployment and underemployment the norm and 46% of the adult population working (and not making anywhere near what they where making before), nobody has the money to buy these houses. They can't even get financing if they wanted to because of the stringent rules. They would have to start the subprime stuff all over again (it won't happen). It's getting harder and harder for economists to keep everything hugs and kisses in the economy, when they know Hyperinflation (we are going to see hyperinflation) and the debasement of the dollar and our economy is increasing every month.
I think one morning in the near future, the rug is going to be pulled out from under our economy and people will see how broke the country truly is.
Precisely, Popo. I can't believe Santelli was in favor of this 'as long as the banks pay for it' - NO!
It is one of the most idiotic ideas floated in this recent decade of hyperbolic stupidity.
The houses have value! In a world of scarcity it is utterly moronic to destroy something of value in a vain attempt to 'stimulate' the production of more or to inflate the price of those not destroyed.
This is Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy (or What is seen and what is not seen), written in 1850. The fact that we're even considering this proves that our civilization is in decline.
The new American Economy, dig a hole, fill it in, repeat
...and some reader on ZH junked me. Santelli is that you, you turncoat?
There are 80 million guns in America.
Come on over and bulldoze mine
I've read that there are between 200 and 300 million. Either way, that's a lot of guns.
The largest ever assembled army in modern times was when Germany had 6 million men on the border getting ready to fight Russia, yet, 12 Million firearms were sold in the U.S. the 1st MONTH obummer took office. Hmmm???
Ah yes, and excuse the threatening tone but just how many of these said guns are stylish, mm?
Only 80 million? Every one I know has several to many.
Behind every blade of grass, as that Japanese general said....
How about the novel idea of renting these new houses to people in old houses or apartments for the same rates they are paying and ripping down the old houses & apartments to turn them into parks. Guess what? That's exactly what would happen if you just let them go on the market.
+++ ...would probably reduce homelessness too.
There's this new invention called "Paint". It can be used as a thin coating on the exterior of the home and it can actually change the color to suit everyones taste. It even sells at a very reasonable cost.
Do you know where one might actually procure some of this so-called 'pant'?
Why, do you want to paint Erin's nose. I think she already sniffs enough asses.
sniffing asses is a requisite for Council for Foreign Relations members.